Case 6009086/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Hughes v Amscan International — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009086/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Hughes presented a claim against Amscan International, issued in the North East Employment Tribunals on 20 August 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Bright decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. This was a Rule 22 judgment on liability only, so the decision records the unfair dismissal finding but does not set out any underlying contested facts or reasons beyond the default determination process.
Remedy was not assessed in this judgment. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 22 judgment: the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, the tribunal determined the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and the claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed. Remedy was left to a separate Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.