Case 3321239/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D M Kropidlowski v Kevin King Panoramic Product — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321239/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D M Kropidlowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers.
Judgment was entered in favour of the claimant. The judgment record does not quantify the award at this stage; instead, it states that sums are to be assessed at a remedy hearing.
The tribunal directed the claimant to prepare a witness statement setting out all losses claimed, including wages owed and the period covered, and to bring copies to the hearing. The claimant was also directed to prepare a bundle of documents relating to financial losses, including wage slips.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment entered in favour of the claimant under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; sums were to be assessed at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment entered in favour of the claimant under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time; the tribunal directed that losses and wages owed be addressed at a remedy hearing. | 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.