Case 6010635/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Thomas v Recyclabox Limited (t/a Spring) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010635/2024
- Decision date
- 11 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a rule 21 judgment promulgated on 17 October 2024 that upheld liability (subject to remedy) for a redundancy payment and statutory annual leave, the tribunal sitting at Cardiff (hybrid) on 7 February 2025 determined the remaining claims and remedy. The Respondent did not attend and the Claimant appeared in person via Cloud Video Platform.
Employment Judge R Evans found the Claimant's claims for notice pay and unpaid wages well-founded and upheld them. The Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed upon his withdrawal of it.
The Respondent was ordered to pay £2,976.90 as a redundancy payment, plus a further £1,954.00 net, comprising £496.15 statutory holiday pay, £496.15 unpaid wages and £1,984.60 notice pay, less £1,022.90 already paid on or around 30 June 2024. The total net sum ordered was £4,930.90.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment of 17 October 2024 upheld liability; remedy of £2,976.90 ordered at the 7 February 2025 hearing. | Upheld | — | £2,977 |
| Holiday pay | Statutory annual leave (working time) liability upheld at the rule 21 stage; £496.15 awarded as statutory holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £496 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim upheld; £1,984.60 awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,985 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages claim upheld; £496.15 awarded. | Upheld | — | £496 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon the Claimant having withdrawn the complaint. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,931
- across all upheld claims
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.