Case 3201572/2023 · Employment Tribunal
AB v X and Y — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201572/2023
- Decision date
- 21 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeny
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AB
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents' responses were dismissed pursuant to an unless order made under Rule 38 after they failed to confirm that they were actively pursuing their responses by the required deadline. The judgment records that the respondents did not attend or have representation at the preliminary hearing and did not make written representations or otherwise correspond with the Tribunal after that hearing.
The Employment Judge decided that the claim, or part of it, could properly be determined under Rule 21 because there was no valid response. The claims for direct sex discrimination, harassment of a sexual nature, unpaid holiday pay, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998, unauthorised deductions from wages, failure to provide itemised pay statements, and failure to provide a statement of initial employment particulars succeeded. Remedy was left to be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim for direct sex discrimination succeeds under Rule 21. Remedy is to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claim for harassment of a sexual nature succeeds under Rule 21. Remedy is to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim for breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim for unauthorised deductions of wages succeeds. Remedy is to be determined at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements succeeds. This is mapped to other because the locked taxonomy has no specific itemised pay statement category. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure
- Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure
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.