Case 2500636/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Julie Longbottom v APEX Tooling and Moulding Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500636/2025
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Julie Longbottom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response to any of the claims on time. Employment Judge Aspden decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of GBP 589.44 gross. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment, with the amount to be decided after further information from the claimant.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Further information was required to decide whether damages could be determined without a hearing, failing which remedy would be decided at a Remedy Hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and must pay GBP 589.44 gross. | Upheld | — | £589 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that 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 that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, but further information was required before damages could be determined. | 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.