Case 6019035/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D O’Connell v Armstrong Teasdale Management Limited (In Administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019035/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D O’Connell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 18 November 2024. The respondent did not attend and had failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Keogh decided that part of the claim could properly be determined under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant and that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left to a Remedy Hearing.
The tribunal stated that it was not appropriate at this stage to determine the claimant's remaining complaints of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, detriment following protected disclosure under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, or victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal determined part of the claim under rule 22 because the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. Remedy was reserved to a separate Remedy Hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.