Case 2302762/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Stuart v One World (UK) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302762/2018
- Decision date
- 1 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Stuart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 1 March 2019, Employment Judge Andrews Date entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent had failed to enter a response to the claim. The tribunal found that Ms J Stuart was dismissed unfairly and that the dismissal was also in breach of contract in respect of notice.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay to which the claimant was entitled and failed to provide her with a statement of terms and conditions of employment. No separate remedy figures were determined in this decision.
A remedy hearing was listed by separate order, and the hearing listed for 6 September 2019 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to enter a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach was stated to be in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay holiday pay to which the claimant was entitled. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment; this is not separately classified in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.