Claimant v Certa Precision Engineering Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Under Rule 21, the tribunal determined the claim on papers and found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded in the absence of a defence.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Under Rule 21, the tribunal determined the claim on papers and found the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay well-founded in the absence of a defence.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Under Rule 21, the tribunal determined the claim on papers and found the claim for statutory redundancy payment well-founded in the absence of a defence.
The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Under Rule 21, the tribunal determined the claim on papers and found the claim for failure to pay holiday pay well-founded in the absence of a defence.
The respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions contrary to Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under Rule 21, the tribunal found this claim well-founded in the absence of a defence.
Facts
L Barnes brought claims against Certa Precision Engineering Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), failure to pay statutory redundancy payment, failure to pay holiday pay, and failure to provide written statement of terms and conditions. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the claim was filed on 09 January 2025 in the Leeds Employment Tribunal.
Decision
The Employment Judge determined all claims in favour of the claimant under Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, as the respondent had failed to present a valid response on time. All five claims were found well-founded and succeeded. Compensation will be determined at a separate Remedy Hearing.
Practical note
When a respondent fails to file a valid ET3 response on time, tribunals may issue default judgments under Rule 21, finding all claims well-founded with remedy to be determined at a separate hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1800306/2025
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No