Case 6008516/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. J Dakin v Aitune Medical Practice — 2024
- Case reference
- 6008516/2024
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. J Dakin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment in Mrs. J Dakin's claim against Aitune Medical Practice because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Heap decided that a determination could properly be made on the claim, or part of it, under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment records that the claim succeeded. The listing category provided was unfair dismissal, and the outcome is that the claimant's claim was upheld on that basis. No substantive reasons on liability are set out in the short judgment beyond the rule 21 default procedure.
The tribunal did not determine any remedy in this judgment. It directed that the claimant's remedy would be decided at a separate Remedy Hearing. The hearing listed for 3 December 2024 was converted into that Remedy Hearing with a reduced time estimate of 3 hours, and the venue and commencement time were unchanged.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The claim succeeded and remedy was listed for a separate Remedy 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.