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 namedClaimant
Paul Nichol
Respondent
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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages claim upheld. The respondent ordered to pay £2,279.36 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim upheld. The respondent ordered to pay £884.92 gross for unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy pay claim upheld. The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £16,089.84. | Upheld | — | £16,090 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice upheld in principle. The Tribunal required the claimant to provide further information so it can decide whether the amount of damages can be determined without a hearing; if not, remedy will be decided at a Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal 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.