Claimant v Certa Precision Engineering Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claim could be determined without a hearing. The claim of unfair dismissal was found to be well-founded.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claim could be determined without a hearing. The claim for wrongful dismissal (notice pay) was found to be well-founded.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claim could be determined without a hearing. The claim for failure to pay statutory redundancy payment was found to be well-founded.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined under rule 21 that the claim could be determined without a hearing. The claim for failure to pay holiday pay was found to be well-founded.
The respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions as required by Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found this claim well-founded under rule 21 following the respondent's failure to respond.
Facts
Mr Barnes was employed by Certa Precision Engineering Limited, a precision engineering company. His employment was terminated in circumstances that led him to bring claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, redundancy pay, holiday pay, and failure to provide written terms and conditions. He filed his claim in January 2025, but the respondent failed to submit a response within the required timeframe.
Decision
The tribunal determined under rule 21 that all five claims could be properly determined without a hearing given the respondent's failure to respond. The tribunal found all claims well-founded and ordered that compensation and damages be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Practical note
Rule 21 default judgments can result in all substantive claims succeeding where a respondent fails to engage with the tribunal process, though quantum must still be properly assessed at a remedy hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1800305/2025
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No