Case 2500635/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Johnlee Griffiths v APEX Tooling and Moulding Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500635/2025
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Johnlee Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims on 25 and 26 June 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response to any of the claims on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and failed to pay holiday entitlement, ordering gross payments of £2279.36 and £884.92 respectively. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, but required further information before deciding the amounts payable for those matters.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and must pay this gross amount. | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement and must pay this gross amount. | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment, but further information was required to decide the amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, but further information was required to determine damages or whether a remedy hearing was needed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 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.