Case 6004525/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Beckett v Quad Studios Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004525/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Beckett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 24 June 2024. Quad Studios Ltd did not present a valid response, and Employment Judge Ahmed decided that the claim could properly be determined under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal recorded that both of Ms L Beckett's complaints succeeded: unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The judgment does not set out findings on liability beyond the Rule 21 determination and the stated success of those complaints.
The judgment did not assess compensation or damages. Instead, it directed that the claim be listed for a remedy hearing to assess damages and compensation in respect of the successful complaints, with notice to be sent to the parties in due course.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The respondent had failed to present a valid response, and the judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was assessed in this judgment; the matter was listed for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's disability discrimination complaint succeeded. The respondent had failed to present a valid response, and the judge determined the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was assessed in this judgment; the matter was listed for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.