Case 2500221/2022 · Employment Tribunal
S CLARK v Bijoux Leisure Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500221/2022
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S CLARK
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone hearing on 6 May 2022 before Employment Judge O'Dempsey, the tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. It therefore proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, with counsel for the claimant heard and no appearance entered for the respondent.
The judgment states that all claims were dismissed upon withdrawal save that judgment was entered against the respondent in respect of the claimant's claims for breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay, and breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The respondent was ordered to pay £2,310.00. The written record also notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Default judgment entered under rule 21; part of the combined £2,310.00 award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Described in the judgment as unpaid holiday pay; default judgment entered under rule 21 and included in the combined £2,310.00 award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998; default judgment entered under rule 21 and included in the combined £2,310.00 award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,310
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the 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.