Case 1403887/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Pattinson (1) Mrs F Pattinson (2) v Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403887/2023
- Decision date
- 23 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Pattinson (1) Mrs F Pattinson (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe First and Second Claimants brought claims for redundancy payments and holiday pay against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The Tribunal found that the claims relating to both applications by the First Claimant and the first application by the Second Claimant were not presented within the applicable time limit, and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. Those claims were dismissed.
The Tribunal also considered the Second Claimant's claims for redundancy payment and holiday pay in relation to her second application to the respondent. It found that the claim was presented before the Secretary of State's decision on that second application had been communicated to her, meaning the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. That claim was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment dismissed the redundancy payment claims. For both applications to the respondent by the First Claimant and the first application by the Second Claimant, the claims were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. The Second Claimant's claim relating to her second application was dismissed because it was presented before the Secretary of State's decision on that application was communicated, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment dismissed the holiday pay claims. For both applications to the respondent by the First Claimant and the first application by the Second Claimant, the claims were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. The Second Claimant's claim relating to her second application was dismissed because it was presented before the Secretary of State's decision on that application was communicated, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- applicable time limit
- jurisdiction
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.