Case 1300309/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bloxham v Handling Equipment UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300309/2025
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bloxham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr P Bloxham had been unfairly dismissed by Handling Equipment UK Limited. It awarded a basic award of £10,500.00 and a compensatory award of £748.85. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply because the claimant had claimed no state benefits after dismissal.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint in respect of holiday pay. It found that the respondent had breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended, and ordered payment of £621.23. The judgment records that the respondent is responsible for any tax or National Insurance attributable to that sum.
In addition, the tribunal found that when the proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It held that there were no exceptional circumstances making an award of two weeks' gross pay unjust or inequitable, and that an award of four weeks' gross pay would not be just and equitable. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it therefore ordered payment of £1,400.00.
The total sum ordered to be paid to the claimant was £13,270.08. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the decision record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £10,500.00 and a compensatory award of £748.85. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply because the claimant claimed no state benefits following dismissal. | Upheld | — | £11,249 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded and held that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken when employment ended. The respondent was ordered to pay £621.23, with tax or National Insurance attributable to that sum payable by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £621 |
| Other | The tribunal found that when proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. Applying section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded £1,400.00 after finding there were no exceptional circumstances making a two weeks' gross pay award unjust or inequitable, and that a four weeks' gross pay award would not be just and equitable. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,270
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,500
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £749
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.