Case 2500633/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Nichol v APEX Tooling and Moulding Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500633/2025
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedPaul Nichol
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPaul Nichol brought claims against APEX Tooling and Moulding Solutions Ltd (cases 2500633/2025, 2500643/2025, 2500652/2025 and 2500671/2025), presented in the Employment Tribunal on 25, 26 and 27 June 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response to any of the claims on time. Employment Judge Aspden made a determination under Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £2,279.36 gross, and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £884.92 gross. The claimant was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £16,089.84.
The Tribunal further found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It required the claimant to provide further information so the Tribunal could decide whether damages for that breach could be determined without a hearing; if not, the remedy will be decided at a separate Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Redundancy | Upheld | — | £16,090 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.