Case 3303688/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Thomas (1) Mr R Montano (2) v Cadix UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303688/2025
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Thomas (1) Mr R Montano (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity, by a letter dated 4 December 2025, to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out as duplicates of claims previously addressed by the tribunal.
The claimants did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, or did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claims are struck out because they are duplicates of claims previously addressed by the tribunal. The short judgment does not separately analyse each listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claims are struck out because they are duplicates of claims previously addressed by the tribunal. The short judgment does not separately analyse each listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims are struck out because they are duplicates of claims previously addressed by the tribunal. The short judgment does not separately analyse each listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claims are struck out because they are duplicates of claims previously addressed by the tribunal. The short judgment does not separately analyse each listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
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.