Case 2600794/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alan Joynes v Geometric Results International Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2600794/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alan Joynes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Camp made a default judgment under rule 21 after a telephone preliminary hearing on 29 June 2020. Geometric Results International Limited had not presented a response and did not appear. The reasons record that the claimant had originally brought a claim against Staffline Recruitment Limited, and that Geometric Results was added because it could be liable under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.
The solicitor for Staffline Recruitment Limited told the tribunal that Geometric Results appeared to be aware of the claim and accepted that it owed the claimant something, though not necessarily the precise amount claimed. In those circumstances, the judge said there was no good reason not to award the claimant what he was claiming under rule 21. The respondent was ordered to pay £678.41.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | The reasons say Geometric Results International Limited was added as a respondent because it could be liable under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The judgment does not identify a more specific head of claim, but it orders payment of the full claimed sum. | Upheld | — | £678 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £678
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Agency Workers Regulations 2010
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.