Cases2501115/2025

Claimant v Royale Oceanic International Limited

19 August 2025Before Employment Judge SweeneyNorth Easton papers

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Redundancy Paysucceeded

This is a default judgment under Rule 22 where the respondent failed to participate in proceedings. The tribunal found the claim for statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found the claim for notice pay (breach of contract) was well founded. This was a default judgment where the respondent did not defend the claim.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found the claim for unlawful deduction of wages (arrears of pay) was well founded. This was a default judgment where the respondent failed to respond.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The tribunal found the claim for payment of holiday pay outstanding on termination under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. This was a default judgment with no response from the respondent.

Facts

This is a liability judgment made under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The claimant brought claims for statutory redundancy payment, notice pay, arrears of pay, and accrued holiday pay on termination of employment. The respondent, Royale Oceanic International Limited, did not participate in the proceedings, leading to a default judgment.

Decision

The tribunal found all four claims well founded and succeeded: statutory redundancy payment under section 163 ERA 1996, notice pay (breach of contract), unlawful deduction of wages (arrears), and holiday pay under regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998. A remedy hearing has been ordered to determine the quantum of awards.

Practical note

Default judgments under Rule 22 can be obtained where a respondent fails to participate, but a separate remedy hearing is required to quantify the awards for successful claims.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

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

Case details

Case number
2501115/2025
Decision date
19 August 2025
Hearing type
default judgment
Hearing days
Classification
default

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No