Case 2600119/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M East v Hopkinson Waste Management Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600119/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M East
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East Midlands Employment Tribunals on 13 January 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim could properly be decided under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal recorded that the claim of unfair dismissal and notice pay succeeds. On the wording of the judgment, both the unfair dismissal claim and the notice pay claim were upheld on a default basis rather than after a contested liability hearing.
No remedy figure was fixed in the judgment. The tribunal directed that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing, and noted that the hearing listed on 23 May 2023 would proceed as a remedy hearing only.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim succeeded under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; remedy was left to a later hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.