Case 3321339/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Bean v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 3321339/2019
Decision date: 31 December 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anstis

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr D Bean

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claim was determined under Rule 21 after NSL Limited did not present a response. Employment Judge Anstis entered judgment in the claimant's favour on all pleaded heads dealt with in the judgment: unfair dismissal, unlawful disability discrimination, unpaid holiday pay, and breach of contract arising from dismissal without notice.

The judgment does not set out detailed findings of fact or legal analysis beyond those conclusions. It records that a remedy hearing would be listed to determine what was due to Mr D Bean, and notes that the respondent could participate in that hearing under rule 21(3). No monetary award was assessed in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Entered under Rule 21 because the respondent did not present a response; remedy was not determined in this judgment.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment records unlawful disability discrimination, but no remedy was assessed at this stage.	Upheld	Disability	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal found that holiday pay had not been paid; remedy was left to a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The breach found was dismissal without notice; remedy was to be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.