Case 2304490/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Gilbert v Act Fast Haulage Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304490/2018
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Gilbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment. Employment Judge Ferguson recorded that the respondent, Act Fast Haulage Ltd, had failed to enter a response to the claim, and judgment was entered for Mr L Gilbert on 10 September 2019.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal, failure to pay notice pay, failure to pay holiday pay, and unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded. The judgment does not set out substantive findings on the underlying facts beyond the respondent's failure to respond.
No compensation was fixed in this judgment. The tribunal stated that remedy would be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal. It was allowed under Rule 21 because the respondent did not enter a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded in the judgment as failure to pay notice pay. The remedy was not quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded in the judgment as failure to pay holiday pay. The remedy was not quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded in the judgment as a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. The remedy was not quantified in this judgment. | 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.