Mr R Humber v Field View Joinery — 2024

Case reference: 2600116/2024
Decision date: 27 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ahmed Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Humber

Respondent

Field View Joinery

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment in this case because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 13 January 2024. Employment Judge Ahmed recorded that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The judgment states that the claim succeeds, but it does not identify the particular legal claim or claims that were upheld. It also does not set out any findings on liability beyond the Rule 21 default basis, and it does not record any monetary award.

Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing, and that notice would be sent to the parties separately.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the specific cause or causes of action; it records only that the claim succeeded under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.