Case 2500097/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Josh Lynas v Lloyd’s Register GMT Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500097/2021
- Decision date
- 17 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Josh Lynas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJosh Lynas brought complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal arising from the summary termination of his employment as a laboratory technician on 22 October 2020. The claim form was presented on 20 January 2021 and served on Lloyd’s Register GMT Limited, but no response was returned by the response date of 26 February 2021.
Proceeding under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied on the material before the Tribunal that the Claimant had set out the basis of his complaints with sufficient clarity and that a determination could properly be made. In the absence of any response from the Respondent and on the basis of the claim form, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.
The judgment was limited to liability. The Tribunal was not in a position to determine remedy at that stage, so the listed hearing on 21 May 2021 was converted to a one-hour remedy hearing. The Respondent was to receive notice of that hearing and was entitled to participate in it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability determined on Rule 21 basis; remedy was not determined at this stage. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Liability determined on Rule 21 basis; remedy was not determined at this stage. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.