Case 4102395/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mr D Michel — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102395/2017
- Decision date
- 16 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim form was sent to the respondent on 15 August 2017 and that the respondent failed to enter a response within the 28-day period required by Rule 16 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. On that basis, the Employment Judge decided that liability could properly be determined without a hearing.
The judgment states that the claimant's complaints of breach of contract, and the employer's contract claim, succeeded. The decision is a default judgment on liability under Rules 21 and 25 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, not a full merits hearing.
The tribunal did not determine remedy on the papers. It directed that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined by an Employment Judge at a hearing. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's breach of contract complaint succeeded on the papers under Rules 21 and 25; remedy was left to be determined at a hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment also records that the employer's contract claim succeeded. The text does not classify this claim further, and remedy was reserved for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.