Case 2600422/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Ward-Smith v Miresh Property Company Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600422/2019
- Decision date
- 29 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Ward-Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 liability-only judgment. The respondent failed to comply with an unless order made by Employment Judge Dyal on 16 June 2020. The order required compliance by 4pm on 29 June 2020, but the respondent did not comply, and the response was dismissed as of 30 June 2020.
As a result of that procedural default, the tribunal held that the claims of unfair constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal were well founded and succeeded. The judgment records liability only and does not determine compensation.
The tribunal stated that remedy would be decided at a later hearing. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Broughton and sent to the parties on 29 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as 'unfair constructive dismissal'. The response was dismissed under Rule 21 after non-compliance with the unless order. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states 'automatic unfair dismissal' but does not specify the underlying statutory basis in the extracted text. | 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.