Case 2302699/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Brown v Top Dec Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302699/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that it had written to the Respondent on 12 May 2020 after the Respondent did not attend the case management discussion on 7 May 2020. The Respondent did not reply with reasons why the response should not be struck out.
The response was struck out on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. The claim was therefore treated as though there was no response, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
As a result, the claim succeeded and the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £1,064.00. The judgment does not break that sum down into separate heads of loss or identify any further remedy assessment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Respondent's response was struck out after the Tribunal wrote on 12 May 2020 about non-attendance at the case management discussion on 7 May 2020 and the Respondent did not provide reasons why the response should not be struck out. The claim was then treated as having no response under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, so the claim succeeded and the Respondent was ordered to pay £1,064.00. | Upheld | — | £1,064 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,064
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.