Case 2603562/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. W Reith v Heaton Products Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603562/2019
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. W Reith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was issued in the Midlands Employment Tribunals on 8 December 2019. The Respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the Claimant accepted that he did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records no dismissal findings on the merits for that claim.
The disability discrimination complaint succeeded. The judgment did not quantify compensation or other remedy at that stage, stating instead that the remedy would be determined at a resumed Remedy Hearing to proceed on the papers following a preliminary hearing on 9 February 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Claimant accepted that he lacked the qualifying service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of disability discrimination succeeded, but the remedy was not determined in this judgment and was to be addressed at a resumed remedy hearing on the papers after the preliminary hearing on 9 February 2021. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.