Case 2600568/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hill v Concorde Tyre & Exhaust Centres Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600568/2018
- Decision date
- 7 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in Mr S Hill v Concorde Tyre & Exhaust Centres Limited (in administration). The judgment records that the joint administrator had consented in writing to accept awards against the respondent in administration, and on that basis the tribunal entered judgment for the claimant.
The extracted template does not contain any substantive liability reasons or findings beyond the statement that the claim succeeds. It also does not quantify any award at this stage.
The judgment says that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. No final monetary sum is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment; the extracted template does not break out the heads of claim, so this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; the extracted template does not break out the heads of claim, so this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.