Case 6018230/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Samways v Weavers Carpets and Flooring Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018230/2025
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Samways
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 16 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time.
Employment Judge McTigue decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The claim succeeds, with remedy to be determined at a remedy hearing on 9 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not set out separate reasoning or remedy for this claim type. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not set out separate reasoning or remedy for this claim type. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not set out separate reasoning or remedy for this claim type. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The rule 22 judgment states that the claim succeeds but does not set out separate reasoning or remedy for this claim type. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.