Case 6012797/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Alan Crosby v Shears red5 Ltd – in voluntary creditor’s liquidation (Paul Shearer) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012797/2025
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alan Crosby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 14 April 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the Employment Judge decided under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure that a determination could properly be made of the claim or part of it without a hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £5,040.00 in damages for notice, £12,600.00 as a redundancy payment, and £840.00 for unpaid holiday entitlement, amounting to £18,480.00 in total. The hearing previously listed on 28 July 2025 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,040 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £12,600 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay claimant's holiday entitlement. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations / Unlawful Deduction from Wages; judgment characterises it as unpaid holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £840 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,480
- 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.