Case 2602433/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Paul v Facilities For All( UK) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602433/2018
- Decision date
- 21 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Paul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Rule 21 judgment dated 21 March 2019 in which Employment Judge Hutchinson recorded that the claim succeeds. The judgment does not set out the underlying facts, does not identify separate findings on each pleaded head of claim, and does not determine any remedy at this stage.
The order states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. The listed hearing on 03 April 2019 was cancelled. On the text supplied, there are no expressed legal tests, no lay members listed, and no monetary award recorded in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break out findings by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break out findings by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break out findings by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that the claim succeeds; it does not break out findings by individual head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
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.