Case 3303443/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Rafique v Hertford Food Limited & Others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303443/2019
- Decision date
- 25 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Henry Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Rafique
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave judgment under Rule 21 because the time for presenting a response had expired and no valid response had been presented in time. On the information before Employment Judge Henry Date, the Tribunal found that Mr Z Rafique’s claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and holiday pay succeeded.
No remedy was assessed in this judgment. The Tribunal directed that any remedy due to the Claimant would be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 10:00am on Thursday 17 October 2019 at the Employment Tribunals, 2nd Floor, 51 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1HP.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 default judgment: no valid response was presented in time. The Tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 default judgment: no valid response was presented in time. The Tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 default judgment: no valid response was presented in time. The Tribunal recorded that the holiday pay claim succeeded, with remedy to be determined at a later hearing. | 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.