Case 2600023/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Coughlan v Brookes Jordan Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2600023/2018
- Decision date
- 28 March 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Coughlan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment in which Employment Judge Evans recorded that the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21, and that the claim succeeded. The judgment did not give separate liability reasons for each complaint, and it did not fix any monetary award at this stage.
The case was listed in the name of Mrs M Coughlan against Brookes Jordan Ltd and, on the case context supplied, covered breach of contract, disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time complaints. The claimant was directed to bring a Schedule of Loss to the Remedy Hearing setting out the compensation or damages sought and how any figures were calculated.
The judgment also stated that any part of the claim relating to dismissal and lost earnings should include details of alternative employment, earnings since dismissal, and any social security benefits received as a result of dismissal. The hearings listed on 18 April 2018 and 7 to 9 January 2019 were cancelled, and a notice of Remedy Hearing was to be issued in due course.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Succeeded by default under Rule 21; remedy was deferred to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Succeeded by default under Rule 21; remedy was deferred to a separate hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded by default under Rule 21; remedy was deferred to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded by default under Rule 21; remedy was deferred to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Succeeded by default under Rule 21; remedy was deferred to a separate hearing. | 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.