Case 3202444/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v D T Curtis — 2023
- Case reference
- 3202444/2020
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the East London Employment Tribunals on 17 September 2020. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the claimant's claims for redundancy payment, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay, and wages succeeded. The judgment does not contain any findings on the underlying merits beyond the Rule 21 default process.
No remedy figure was recorded in this judgment. The decision states that a remedy hearing would be listed for 5 May 2023 at 10:00am for 3 hours.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment does not record a remedy amount in this decision; it lists a separate remedy hearing for 5 May 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment does not record a remedy amount in this decision; it lists a separate remedy hearing for 5 May 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid holiday pay succeeding under Rule 21. No remedy amount is recorded in this decision; remedy was left to a hearing listed for 5 May 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to unpaid wages succeeding under Rule 21. No remedy amount is recorded in this decision; remedy was left to a hearing listed for 5 May 2023. | 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.