Case 2500448/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J Routledge v Retox Digital Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500448/2025
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Routledge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Aspden decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and holiday pay well-founded. It also determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. The remedy for each successful complaint was left to be decided at a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and stated that remedy would be decided at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay well-founded and stated that remedy would be decided at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded, recording an unauthorised deduction for accrued but untaken holiday pay under the contract and/or Working Time Regulations reg 14. Remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment, with the amount to be determined at a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Working Time Regulations reg 14
- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.