Case 2502087/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Taylor v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502087/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs I Taylor
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment after Boe Gin Ltd failed to present a response. On the information before Employment Judge Johnson, the tribunal held that Mrs I Taylor’s complaints were well-founded and all succeeded on liability.
The complaints upheld were unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, failure to pay holiday pay due under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, sex discrimination, and discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and/or maternity leave. The judgment is expressly limited to liability only.
The tribunal directed that the hearing listed on 29 January 2021 be converted to a remedy hearing. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment on liability only; no remedy decided in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Default judgment on liability only; no remedy decided in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment describes this as failure to pay an amount due under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (holiday pay). | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Default judgment on liability only; no remedy decided in this judgment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment refers to discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and/or maternity leave. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.