Case 1601869/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Rosser v Pat’s Fine Foods Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601869/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Rosser
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Rosser brought claims against Pat’s Fine Foods Ltd for wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and a statutory redundancy payment. The case was heard at Cardiff by video on 22 April 2022 before Employment Judge Russell. The respondent did not attend.
The tribunal held that the wrongful dismissal and holiday pay claims were not brought within the relevant time limits. It found that it was reasonably practicable to bring those claims in time, and both claims were therefore dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment and that this had not been paid by the respondent. It ordered Pat’s Fine Foods Ltd to pay £2,497.60 gross, calculated by reference to the claimant’s age and continuous service from November 2014.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not brought within the relevant time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the claim was not brought within the relevant time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded in the sum of £2,497.60 gross, based on the claimant's age and continuous service from November 2014. | Upheld | — | £2,498 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,498
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.