Case 2501058/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Bradshaw v Richard Lloyd-Hughes — 2019
- Case reference
- 2501058/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Bradshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Bradshaw presented claims for unauthorised deduction from wages, holiday pay and breach of contract against Richard Lloyd-Hughes. Notice of the claim was sent to the respondent on 3 June 2019, but no response was presented within the time allowed.
Employment Judge Shepherd therefore issued a Rule 21 judgment on 2 July 2019. The judgment records that the claim succeeds on the information before the Employment Judge because no valid response had been presented.
The judgment does not determine any monetary award. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing, and it converts the hearing listed for 30 July 2019 into a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment entered because no response was presented by the respondent; the judgment does not split any remedy by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment entered because no response was presented by the respondent; the judgment does not split any remedy by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment entered because no response was presented by the respondent; the judgment does not split any remedy by claim. | 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.