Case 3201002/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Baskan v Ap Consultancy Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201002/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Baskan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is a Rule 21 default judgment in favour of Mr I Baskan against AP Consultancy Limited. The judgment records that the claim succeeds and that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 17 August 2020 before Employment Judge Taylor.
The extracted text is a universal template and does not set out findings of fact, legal reasoning, or a quantified award. No separate remedy figures are recorded in this judgment, so the only substantive outcome in the text is that liability succeeds and remedy is postponed to the later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted PDF is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claim succeeds'. This head of claim is taken from the case listing context rather than being spelled out in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The extracted PDF is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claim succeeds'. This head of claim is taken from the case listing context rather than being spelled out in the judgment text. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted PDF is a Rule 21 default judgment and states only that 'the claim succeeds'. This head of claim is taken from the case listing context rather than being spelled out in the judgment text. | 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.