Case 3303819/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Thomas v Cadix UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303819/2025
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the South East Employment Tribunal and the respondent indicated that it did not contest the claim. Employment Judge Anstis determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £1,132.51 gross, that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice with damages of £7,550.04, and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,521.60 (being £12,461.60 less £3,940 already paid). The respondent had also failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement of £629.17.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Anstis on 4 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 23 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages of £7,550.04 awarded. | Upheld | — | £7,550 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; ordered to pay £629.17. | Upheld | — | £629 |
| Redundancy | Entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,521.60 (being £12,461.60 less £3,940 already paid). | Upheld | — | £8,522 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages; respondent ordered to pay £1,132.51 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,133 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,833
- 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.