Case 2601934/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Goodall v Mr Richard Buxton Moore — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601934/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Goodall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Region Employment Tribunals on 30 August 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Ahmed Date decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claim succeeds. It does not break down separate factual findings for each pleaded head of claim in the extracted text, but the decision is a default judgment in the claimant's favour.
No remedy is fixed in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing, cancelled the hearing listed for 14, 15 and 16 July 2025, and recorded that the Preliminary Hearing listed for 30 January 2024 would proceed for case management orders for remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate findings for this head of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate findings for this head of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined later. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate findings for this head of claim; it records only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined later. | 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.