Case 6010992/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cox v The Sure FX Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010992/2025
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr J Cox, was employed by The Sure FX Group Limited as an outbound call agent from 21 October 2024 until 28 November 2024, when his employment terminated by reason of redundancy. He brought claims for unpaid wages and a redundancy payment, presented on 31 March 2025 following ACAS Early Conciliation between 14 February and 5 March 2025. Neither party appeared at the hearing on 8 September 2025, and no response had been received from the Respondent following service of the Notice of Claim on 12 April 2025.
Employment Judge Moor proceeded under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, finding that a determination could properly be made on the available material. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was brought within the 3-month time limit under s.23 ERA 1996; the Claimant was paid £2,209.50 net per month and was owed £2,779.69 for the period worked. That claim was found to be well-founded and the Respondent was ordered to pay £2,779.69.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because, on the Claimant's own case, he did not have the 2 complete years' service required by s.155 ERA 1996. The judgment notes that a Companies House search did not confirm the Claimant's suggestion that the company was in voluntary liquidation, and that there was a strike-off proposal against the Respondent dated 24 June 2025 of which the Claimant was unaware.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought within the 3-month time limit under s.23 ERA 1996. The Respondent did not present a response and did not appear; judgment issued under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 on the material provided by the Claimant. | Upheld | — | £2,780 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed on the basis that the Claimant did not have the 2 complete years' service required under s.155 ERA 1996 (employed 21 October 2024 to 28 November 2024). | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,780
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.