Case 1809052/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Atkinson v Castle Environmental Services Ltd HELD at Leeds by CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1809052/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Atkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed holiday pay after his employment ended on 16 June 2023. He presented his Employment Tribunal claim on 20 December 2023, and did not begin early conciliation until 18 October 2023, after the three-month time limit had already expired.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been told by his union representative that he had three months to bring his claim, and that this advice was given while there was still time to present it. The Tribunal found there was no reasonable explanation for the delay before early conciliation, or for the later delay after the certificate was issued.
The Tribunal concluded that the claim was out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the applicable three-month time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 30(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.