Case 2301758/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ward v Multitrade Management Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301758/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response having been entered by Multitrade Management Ltd, Employment Judge Andrews Date issued judgment under Rule 21 on 2 February 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid wages and breach of contract succeeded, and that Mr D Ward was also entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.
The judgment did not determine the amount of any award. It directed that remedy would be decided at the hearing already listed for 5 March 2021, and ordered the claimant to send an updated statement by 26 February 2021 setting out the remedy sought, any sums claimed, mitigation efforts, and supporting documents. The respondent was to be allowed to participate in that hearing only at the Judge's discretion.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | No response having been entered by the respondent; the claim succeeded under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as unpaid wages and states that the claim succeeded because no response was entered. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim succeeded by default judgment; the remedy was left to the later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment; the amount was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.