Case 6022434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Tilsley v MGI Arena Manchester Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022434/2024
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Tilsley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted the Respondent's application for reconsideration of the judgment of 1 August 2025. It recorded that the Respondent had been unable to use a prescribed form to present the response because the Reform platform produced an error, and the earlier judgment was revoked.
The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's application for an extension of time to present the response. It granted the Claimant's application for default judgment under Rule 22 and directed the parties to file and serve written submissions about the sums to be awarded by 22 December 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment grants default judgment under Rule 22 but does not set out separate reasoning for this claim or quantify remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment grants default judgment under Rule 22 but does not set out separate reasoning for this claim or quantify remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment grants default judgment under Rule 22 but does not set out separate reasoning for this claim or quantify remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment grants default judgment under Rule 22 but does not set out separate reasoning for this claim or quantify remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22
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.