Case 2501266/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Crouch v Stessa Leisure Holdings Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501266/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Crouch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Newcastle Employment Tribunals on 7 September 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Jeram decided that the claim could properly be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal recorded that the claims of unfair dismissal, notice pay, redundancy pay, holiday pay and failure to provide an itemised pay statement all succeed. No monetary award was made in this judgment; the judgment states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeds under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a notice pay claim and states that it succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy pay claim succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for failure to provide an itemised pay statement succeeds; no more specific locked claim type is available. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
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.