Case 2600519/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Bank at Belper and Repurposed Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600519/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBoth respondents, The Bank @ Belper and Repurposed Limited, failed to file a response to the claimant's claims within the required time limit. The Employment Judge therefore decided that liability could properly be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claimant's claims under this claim number succeed. It does not set out separate findings on the merits of each claim, and it does not quantify any award at this stage.
The only remedy note in the judgment is that remedy is to be determined at a Default Judgment Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Liability was entered under Rule 21; the short judgment does not give separate merits reasoning for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Liability was entered under Rule 21; the short judgment does not give separate merits reasoning for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Liability was entered under Rule 21; the short judgment does not give separate merits reasoning for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Liability was entered under Rule 21; the short judgment does not give separate merits reasoning for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Used for the written pay statement issue in the public case listing; the short judgment does not separately describe the underlying claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.