Case 1800823/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Pattison, lay representative First v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 1800823/2025
- Decision date
- 2 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms H Pattison, lay representative First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe first respondent, a building firm, entered a creditors voluntary arrangement on 4 December 2023. After the arrangement was breached, creditors voluntary liquidation followed, employees were dismissed between 8 and 12 November 2024, and liquidators were appointed on 28 November 2024.
The claimants brought claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay after the Redundancy Payments Service refused those claims while paying redundancy and notice pay. The tribunal found that the first respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages for arrears of pay and holiday pay. The claims against the second respondent were dismissed on withdrawal, and the claims against the third respondent were dismissed applying Briman.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent was found to have made unlawful deductions from wages in respect of arrears of pay. Claims against the second respondent were dismissed on withdrawal and claims against the third respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The first respondent was found to have made unlawful deductions from wages in respect of holiday pay. The claimant accepted declaratory relief because claims had already been made in the liquidation. Claims against the second respondent were dismissed on withdrawal and claims against the third respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Briman DBS Ltd/In Liquidation and related BIS v Pengelly/Woolston Manor authority, 2013 WL 1841649
- Briman
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.