Case 2301759/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Williams v Elliott House Limited Heard — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301759/2020
- Decision date
- 26 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs S Williams, presented claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and notice pay on 30 April 2020. The respondent did not present a response within the time limit. The tribunal re-served the ET1 on the respondent's registered address and was satisfied that service requirements had been complied with.
At the preliminary hearing on 26 October 2021, Employment Judge Pritchard decided the case under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On the available material, the tribunal entered liability judgment for the claimant on all three claims: unfair dismissal, race discrimination and breach of contract in respect of notice pay.
The judgment did not determine remedy. The tribunal recorded that a case management order would be issued requiring the claimant to set out her losses, after which a judge would consider whether remedy could be determined on the papers or whether a further hearing before a judge alone would be needed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Liability judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim related to notice pay; liability was determined under Rule 21. | 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.