Case 6011244/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Lyons v Performance Glass Processing Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011244/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Lyons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Leeds Employment Tribunals on 10 September 2024. The respondent, Performance Glass Processing LTD, failed to present a valid response on time, and Employment Judge Ian Miller decided that a determination could properly be made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The only substantive finding recorded in the judgment is that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeds and is upheld. The judgment does not give further reasons on liability beyond the Rule 21 procedure and does not record any factual dispute or defence from the respondent.
The judgment deals with liability only. It states that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a remedy hearing, and that a notice of hearing will be sent separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment was issued under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It states that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeds and is upheld, but liability only was determined and remedy was left to a later hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.