Case 6023448/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Phillips v Barry Tomlinson trading as The Bike Shop Derby — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023448/2025
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Phillips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 24 June 2025 by Mr S Phillips against Barry Tomlinson trading as The Bike Shop Derby. The judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time.
Employment Judge L Brown decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The judgment itself does not contain any separate findings on the merits of the redundancy or unfair dismissal claims beyond that procedural determination.
A remedy hearing was listed to determine the sums due to the claimant. No monetary award is set out in the judgment provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. It does not separately set out the liability or award for this claim in the text provided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. It does not separately set out the liability or award for this claim in the text provided. | 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.