Case 2302053/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Yiangou v Purley Boxing Club Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302053/2023
- Decision date
- 19 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Yiangou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 October 2023, Employment Judge Fowell entered judgment for Mr Michael Yiangou under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because Purley Boxing Club Limited failed to present a response within the time specified. The judgment is a default judgment and does not set out findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims.
The tribunal stated that compensation due to the claimant would be assessed at a further hearing, with the details to be notified to the parties. The respondent was to be permitted to take part in that hearing only to the extent allowed by the Employment Judge. The judgment therefore resolved liability in the claimant's favour but left quantum for later determination.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a response within the time specified; compensation to be assessed at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Default judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a response within the time specified; compensation to be assessed at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a response within the time specified; compensation to be assessed at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Default judgment entered under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a response within the time specified; compensation to be assessed at a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the listed written pay statement issue in the case context; the judgment itself does not separately identify this head of claim. Default judgment entered under Rule 21, with compensation to be assessed later. | 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.