Case 2500638/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ethan Bedford v APEX Tooling and Moulding Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500638/2025
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ethan Bedford
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 made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay gross sums of GBP 2,279.36 for wages and GBP 884.92 for holiday pay.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment, and that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. The amounts for those remedies were not decided in the judgment because further information was required.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £885 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment, but further information was required before the tribunal could decide the amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned notice. The judgment states that further information was required before damages could be determined, with remedy to be decided at a Remedy Hearing if necessary. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,164
- across all upheld claims
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.