Case 2602432/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Peck v Esland North Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602432/2022
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Peck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 default judgment because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge determined that a decision could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claim succeeds. It does not set out the underlying factual allegations or identify any separate heads of claim beyond the disability discrimination listing supplied in the case context, so the specific findings on liability are not elaborated in the extracted text.
No remedy figure is recorded in the judgment itself. Instead, the tribunal said that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a Remedy Hearing, and that the hearing listed on 3 February 2022 was converted to a remedy hearing. The extracted text contains no award amounts and no split between different remedy components.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Rule 21 default judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim succeeded. The text does not specify the precise discrimination allegations. It also states that the hearing listed on 3 February 2022 was converted to a remedy hearing, which appears inconsistent with the claim issue date and may be a typographical error in the extracted text. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.