Case 3312693/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Halford v Westland (Horticulture) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3312693/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Halford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 11 June 2019 Employment Judge Ord issued a Rule 21 default judgment in favour of Mr J Halford against Westland (Horticulture) Ltd. The tribunal recorded that no response had been served to the claimant’s claims, and for that reason the claims succeeded under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment did not set out findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims, and it did not assess remedy. It stated that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined at a hearing on 18 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | No response was served; the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment text does not itemise the pleaded claim, so this classification is taken from the case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | No response was served; the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment text does not itemise the pleaded claim, so this classification is taken from the case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | No response was served; the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment text does not itemise the pleaded claim, so this classification is taken from the case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No response was served; the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment text does not itemise the pleaded claim, so this classification is taken from the case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | No response was served; the claim succeeded under Rule 21. The judgment text does not itemise the pleaded claim, so this classification is taken from the case listing categories. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.