Cases→2500710/2025

Claimant v Royale Oceanic International Limited

19 August 2025Before Employment Judge SweeneyNorth Easton papers

Outcome

Default judgment

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

Default judgment entered under Rule 22 as the respondent failed to present a response or defend the claim. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded on the papers.

Redundancy Paysucceeded

Default judgment entered under Rule 22 as the respondent failed to present a response. The statutory redundancy payment claim under s.163 ERA 1996 was found well founded on the papers.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

Default judgment entered under Rule 22 as the respondent failed to defend. The claim for notice pay was found well founded on the papers.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

Default judgment entered under Rule 22 as the respondent failed to present a response. The claim for arrears of pay was found well founded on the papers.

Holiday Paysucceeded

Default judgment entered under Rule 22 as the respondent failed to defend. The claim for outstanding holiday pay on termination under reg 30 WTR 1998 was found well founded on the papers.

Facts

The claimant D Thompson brought claims against Royale Oceanic International Limited for unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy payment, notice pay, arrears of pay, and holiday pay. The respondent failed to present a response or defend the claim. The tribunal entered default judgment under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, finding all claims well founded on the papers.

Decision

Employment Judge Sweeney entered default judgment in favour of the claimant on all claims under Rule 22 as the respondent failed to defend. All five claims were found well founded and succeeded. A remedy hearing was ordered to determine the awards to be made to the claimant.

Practical note

Where a respondent fails to present a response, the tribunal may enter default judgment finding claims well founded and list a remedy hearing to determine compensation.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.163Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 30

Case details

Case number
2500710/2025
Decision date
19 August 2025
Hearing type
rule 21
Hearing days
—
Classification
default

Respondent

Name
Royale Oceanic International Limited
Sector
other
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →