Case 2213999/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Pattison v Vi Healthy Living Ltd t/a fwip — 2023
- Case reference
- 2213999/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Pattison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response or application for an extension of time was presented by the respondent. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had received the claim papers, including an email from a member of staff on 2 October 2023 saying the CEO was on medical leave and asking for more time, but no ET3 or extension application was ever filed. At the hearing on 13 November 2023, Employment Judge Baty explained the rule 21 position, and the claimant confirmed that he had not received any response.
The tribunal said that, in a simple claim for unpaid notice pay and holiday pay, the CEO’s absence did not amount to grounds for an extension of time, and that even if an application had been made it would not have been granted. Judgment was therefore issued under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. Before doing so, the judge ascertained from the claimant the precise amounts owed.
The claimant’s complaints of breach of contract, in respect of notice pay, and unpaid holiday pay succeeded. The award totalled £2,496.93 gross, made up of £1,846.16 gross for one week’s unpaid notice pay and £650.77 gross for 2.82 days’ unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay element of the total award; described as one week’s unpaid notice pay, gross. | Upheld | — | £1,846 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay element of the total award; described as 2.82 days’ unpaid holiday pay, gross. | Upheld | — | £651 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,497
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.