Case 2600537/2019 · Employment Tribunal
1) Mr S Smith 2) Mr J Scott 3) Mr G Risely v Ecofix Complete Building Solutions Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600537/2019
- Decision date
- 2 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1) Mr S Smith 2) Mr J Scott 3) Mr G Risely
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese linked cases were determined by Rule 21 default judgment against Ecofix Complete Building Solutions Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation). Employment Judge Ahmed recorded that the claim succeeds. The judgment itself is a universal template and does not set out separate liability findings for each head of claim, but the published case listing identifies the matters as breach of contract, redundancy, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time claims.
The tribunal did not fix a final award in this judgment. It stated that remedy would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing, and that the hearing listed for 5 July 2019 was converted to deal with remedy at Leicester Hearing Centre, 5a New Walk, Leicester, LE1 6TE.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 default judgment; the document states that the claim succeeds and does not give separate findings for this head. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Rule 21 default judgment; the document states that the claim succeeds and does not give separate findings for this head. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 default judgment; the document states that the claim succeeds and does not give separate findings for this head. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 default judgment; the document states that the claim succeeds and does not give separate findings for this head. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Rule 21 default judgment; the document states that the claim succeeds and does not give separate findings for this head. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.