Case 3334664/2018 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance or v Mr D Lee (Director) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3334664/2018
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance or
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant did not attend or arrange representation. Mr D Lee, the respondent's director, appeared for Rexell Products Ltd before Employment Judge R Lewis at Watford on 3 December 2019.
The judgment contains no substantive reasons or findings beyond the final order. It states that the claimant's claims are dismissed. No remedy was awarded and no separate breakdown of the dismissed claims is given in the judgment text.
The claim categories have therefore been taken from the GOV.UK listing for this case, which identifies breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and working time regulations issues, but the judgment itself does not elaborate further.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separately identify the reasoning for this head. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separately identify the reasoning for this head. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed; it does not separately identify the reasoning for this head. This claim type is taken from the GOV.UK case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.