Case 2218599/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Colin Boxall v Jade Merchant Bank LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218599/2024
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Colin Boxall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Colin Boxall brought a claim against Jade Merchant Bank LLP. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s redundancy pay, and the redundancy pay claim succeeded. The judgment did not fix the amount at this stage. Instead, the claimant was asked to provide a calculation of his redundancy pay with supporting evidence within 7 days.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for unlawful deduction from wages because it was brought out of time. The hearing listed for 25 July 2024 was converted to a remedy hearing, although the judgment noted that this hearing might not be required if a judge could determine the remedy on the papers.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment held that the claim for redundancy pay succeeds, but the amount was not determined in this decision. The tribunal directed the claimant to provide a calculation and supporting evidence, and listed the matter for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages was brought out of time and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 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.