Case 2602064/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Josey v Intesa (Leicester) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602064/2022
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Josey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file a response to the claimant's claims within the required time limit. Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer therefore decided that liability could properly be determined on the papers under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claimant's claim under this case number succeeded. It does not set out separate factual findings or distinguish between the individual causes of action in the text provided, and it does not record any liability reasoning beyond the rule 21 default judgment position.
A remedy hearing was left to be listed by the Tribunal, described as a two-hour hearing. The judgment therefore records liability only, with the amount of any award to be determined at the later default judgment remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records a rule 21 default judgment on liability after the respondent failed to file a response. It does not set out separate findings for this claim, only that the claimant's claim under this case number succeeded and remedy would be determined later. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records a rule 21 default judgment on liability after the respondent failed to file a response. It does not set out separate findings for this claim, only that the claimant's claim under this case number succeeded and remedy would be determined later. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a rule 21 default judgment on liability after the respondent failed to file a response. It does not set out separate findings for this claim, only that the claimant's claim under this case number succeeded and remedy would be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records a rule 21 default judgment on liability after the respondent failed to file a response. It does not set out separate findings for this claim, only that the claimant's claim under this case number succeeded and remedy would be determined later. | 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.