Case 6001899/2024 · Employment Tribunal
N Daman v Made In Thailand Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001899/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Daman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued by Employment Judge Hutchinson on 28 July 2024. It records that the claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 23 April 2024 and that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time.
The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The extracted text states only that the claim succeeds and does not separate the outcome by individual head of claim.
The judgment also records that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing. No monetary award is set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment only states that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and does not provide a head-by-head breakdown in the text supplied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment only states that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and does not provide a head-by-head breakdown in the text supplied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment only states that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and does not provide a head-by-head breakdown in the text supplied. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment only states that the claim succeeds under rule 21 and does not provide a head-by-head breakdown in the text supplied. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.