Case 2301190/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Lacey v Drift Bridge Garage Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301190/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Lacey
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 06 April 2022 against Drift Bridge Garage Ltd and Phillip Cue. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds. It does not identify the specific legal heads of claim in the extracted text, and it does not set out findings on liability beyond the Rule 21 default judgment decision.
The remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment text does not specify the particular heads of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.