Case 2603027/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Caythorpe Pub Company — 2023
- Case reference
- 2603027/2021
- Decision date
- 8 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 9 December 2021. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Clark Date decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claim succeeds and that the claimant's remedy will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing. The listed preliminary hearing on 6-8 February 2023 was cancelled. The written judgment does not set out separate reasoning for each head of claim or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment is a short Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate factual findings for this head; the claim type is taken from the case categorisation. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a short Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate factual findings for this head; the claim type is taken from the case categorisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment is a short Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate factual findings for this head; the claim type is taken from the case categorisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a short Rule 21 default judgment and does not set out separate factual findings for this head; the claim type is taken from the case categorisation. | 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.