Case 3303730/2020 · Employment Tribunal
James Edmondson v The Nest Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303730/2020
- Decision date
- 30 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Edmondson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the respondent’s late application for postponement. It noted that the claimant did not consent, that the claimant had provided a schedule of loss and supporting documents on 1 May 2021, that the respondent had known of the hearing for five weeks, and that the respondent had taken no steps to contact the claimant to resolve the issue since 1 May 2021. Applying Rule 30A(2), the tribunal was satisfied under Rule 30A(2)(a)(i) that it was not practicable and appropriate to postpone the hearing for the purposes of giving the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute by agreement.
The judgment records that the claim succeeds. The tribunal did not determine the amount of any award in this decision. Instead, it directed that remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 2 December 2021 at 12 noon, with liberty to the parties to notify the tribunal within 7 days if that date was unsuitable and to apply for a new date supported by evidence.
The claimant was ordered to serve his statement of loss and supporting documents on the respondent and the tribunal in an electronic PDF bundle no later than 7 days before the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment records only that 'the claim succeeds' under Rule 21 and does not specify the particular pleaded head(s) of claim in the text provided. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 30A(2)(a)(i)
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.