Case 6007975/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Abigail Beddows v Gamepath Entertainment Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6007975/2026
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Abigail Beddows
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file a response to Ms Abigail Beddows's claim. Under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, judgment was given for Ms Beddows on her complaints of discrimination on grounds of sex and unlawful deduction from wages.
No remedy was determined in this judgment. The Tribunal directed that a hearing be listed to determine the appropriate remedy for each upheld complaint, with the respondent entitled to be informed of and, to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge, participate in that hearing.
Ms Beddows had also presented an unfair dismissal complaint. Because she had less than two years' service, the Tribunal stated that its jurisdiction to consider that complaint was unclear. Referring to Rule 28 and the power to strike out a complaint with no reasonable prospects of success, the Tribunal ordered that the complaint would be dismissed unless written representations explaining why it should proceed were received within three weeks; if representations were received, the Tribunal could permit it to proceed or decide that issue at the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Judgment was given for the claimant under Rule 22 after the respondent failed to file a response. Remedy was reserved to a future hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment was given for the claimant under Rule 22 after the respondent failed to file a response. Remedy was reserved to a future hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | No final outcome was recorded. The Tribunal stated that it was unclear whether it had jurisdiction because the claimant had less than two years' service and ordered that the complaint would be dismissed unless written representations explaining why it should proceed were received within three weeks. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 28 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024: no reasonable prospects of success
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.