Case 2503832/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Reardon v Kyles Legal Practice Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503832/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Reardon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Kyles Legal Practice Ltd failed to present a response. On the information available to the Employment Judge, the tribunal found that Mr G Reardon's complaints were well-founded and that they all succeeded.
The complaints identified in the judgment were unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unauthorised deduction from wages, and failure to give the claimant a written statement of particulars of employment or of a change in the particulars. No remedies were assessed in this judgment; instead, the case was listed to be converted to a remedy hearing on 11 March 2020 with a time estimate of 2 hours.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the breach of contract complaint was well-founded and succeeded under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the complaint described as unauthorised deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the complaint of failure to give the claimant a written statement of particulars of employment or of a change in the particulars was well-founded and succeeded under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a response. | Upheld | — | — |
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.