Case 6006100/2025 · Employment Tribunal
C Lomax v Razors Edge Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006100/2025
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Lomax
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 23 February 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge KM Ross and sent to the parties on 8 July 2025.
The tribunal found that C Lomax had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,625.00. It also found that the claimant was dismissed without notice and was entitled to notice pay of £3,000, calculated as 12 weeks at £250 per week. The judgment separately included the standard notice about interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that the relevant decision day was 8 July 2025, the calculation day was 9 July 2025, and the stipulated rate was 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,625.00. | Upheld | — | £6,625 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice and entitled to notice pay of £3,000, calculated as 12 weeks at £250 per week. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,625
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 Article 12
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.