Case 2302440/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Curtis v Badgers Hill Farm & Cidery — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302440/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Curtis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Employment Tribunals on 12 August 2022. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so 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 set out separate findings on individual heads of claim or any monetary award at this stage. Instead, the tribunal directed that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break out the individual heads of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be dealt with at a later hearing. The gov.uk listing identifies Working Time Regulations among the issues. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not break out the individual heads of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be dealt with at a later hearing. The gov.uk listing identifies a Written Pay Statement issue, which is not mapped to a more specific enum here. | 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.