Case 2501115/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Tearle v Royale Oceanic International Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501115/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Tearle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was made on liability pursuant to Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The tribunal found that the claimant's claims for a statutory redundancy payment, notice pay as breach of contract, arrears of pay as unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay outstanding on termination were well founded and succeeded.
No remedy amount was determined in this judgment. The tribunal stated that a remedy hearing would be listed for a Judge to determine what remedy should be awarded to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim for a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found well founded and succeeded. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim, identified as breach of contract, was found well founded and succeeded. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim concerned arrears of pay and was found well founded and succeeded. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim concerned holiday pay outstanding on termination under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 and was found well founded and succeeded. Remedy was reserved for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.