Loading page content.
TopEmployer file
Since 2017, Would need time to lodge an amended response and the Hearing would need to be postponed to allow sufficient time to deal with the additional claims. 31. The claims were substantially out of time and should not be extended.15 The lack of legal advice was not sufficient as they could have obtained legal advice sooner. 32. The has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.
| # | Claim type | Cases | Relative share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Breach of contract | 1 | |
| 02 | Redundancy | 1 | |
| 03 | Unfair dismissal | 1 | |
| 04 | Working time regulations | 1 |
| Case ref. | Decided | Jurisdiction | Claimant | Claim types | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4103802/2022 | 13 April 2023 | Scotland | (sitting alone)5 Mr J Taylor | Breach of contract, Redundancy, Unfair dismissal, Working time regulations | — |
Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text, and a second LLM-assisted pass adds per-claim outcomes, key findings, and any compensation awarded. Many UK tribunal decisions are liability-only — the remedy is set at a later hearing — so a case can correctly show an outcome with no award figure. See how the data is built.