Case 2301381/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Ann Putt v Hillary’s Coachworks Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301381/2021
- Decision date
- 2 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Ann Putt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 13 April 2021. 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.
On that basis, the tribunal found that Mrs Ann Putt had been unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed by Hillary's Coachworks Ltd. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued holiday entitlement.
The judgment did not record any monetary award. It stated that the claim succeeded and that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing, notice of which would be sent in due course.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found by default judgment under Rule 21; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Found by default judgment under Rule 21; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued holiday entitlement; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | 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.