Case 1303230/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Underwood v CCR Building Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303230/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hussain Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Underwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W Underwood brought a holiday pay claim against CCR Building Services Limited. At the hearing on 11 July 2023, Employment Judge Hussain recorded that the claimant did not attend and was not represented, while the respondent was represented by its company secretary, Mrs Jackie O’Donnell.
The tribunal found that the holiday pay claim was presented outside the time limit in regulation 30(2)(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It further decided not to extend time under regulation 30(2)(b), because it concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time.
As a result, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it. The written record also notes that the respondent’s name was substituted, by consent, from Gerald O’Donnell to CCR Building Services Limited.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claim was presented outside the time limit in regulation 30(2)(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and refused to extend time under regulation 30(2)(b) because it decided it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 30(2)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30(2)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.