Case 2600200/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Walker v The Leicester Dry Cleaning Company Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600200/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mrs L Walker against The Leicester Dry Cleaning Company Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the claim succeeds and that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
The extracted judgment text does not set out any substantive findings of fact or separate reasons for individual heads of claim. It also does not record any monetary award. The hearing listed for 7 May 2021 was cancelled following the judgment.
On the face of the record, the case was treated as successful for the claimant, but the short form judgment does not specify a breakdown between the listed employment claims or identify any legal analysis beyond the Rule 21 default judgment procedure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment states that the claim succeeds; the extracted text does not break down the success by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment states that the claim succeeds; the extracted text does not break down the success by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment states that the claim succeeds; the extracted text does not break down the success by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Rule 21 judgment states that the claim succeeds; the extracted text does not break down the success by individual head of claim. | 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.