Case 2500011/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A M Gaffing First v Pals Packaging and Leisure Solutions Limited Second Respondent: Food and Fuel Break Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500011/2021
- Decision date
- 6 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A M Gaffing First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 17 December 2021 the tribunal made an unless order against the second respondent, Food and Fuel Break Limited, requiring it by 31 December 2021 to explain why it had not attended the telephone preliminary hearing on 16 December 2021. The judgment records that, as at 6 January 2022, the second respondent had not complied with that order.
Because of that non-compliance, the second respondent’s response was struck out and judgment was entered for the claimant on her complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against the second respondent. The tribunal described those complaints as well-founded and successful.
The matter was listed for a public preliminary hearing on 11 March 2022, but the tribunal ordered that hearing to proceed instead as a remedy hearing so that compensation, if any, could be determined. The tribunal also stated that it would consider at that hearing whether any further judgment or orders should be made against the first respondent, Pals Packaging and Leisure Solutions Limited.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered against the second respondent under Rule 21 after non-compliance with an unless order; remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered against the second respondent under Rule 21 after non-compliance with an unless order; remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Rule 38
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.