Case 3307304/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Fox v Amps N Ohms Ltd, Jay Patrick — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307304/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Fox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment entered because no response had been received to the claimant’s claim. On that basis, Employment Judge Ord found that Mr A Fox had been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age, had suffered unlawful deductions from wages, and had been dismissed in breach of contract.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been paid for accounted and untaken holiday pay, that the respondent had not provided a written statement of the particulars of employment, and that it had not provided itemised payslips. The judgment did not record any remedy figures at that stage.
The decision directed that a separate hearing would be held to determine remedy, with the claimant to file a schedule of loss and supporting documents, a witness statement addressing the facts relied on for remedy and injury to feelings, and any medical evidence on which he relied. The dates specified for preparation were 1 February 2021 and 15 February 2021, and the remedy hearing was to take place at Cambridge with a time estimate of three hours.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Found in the Rule 21 judgment on the basis of no response having been received to the claim. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered unlawful deductions from wages. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant was not paid for accounted and untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent did not provide a written statement of particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent did not provide itemised pay slips. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 21
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.