Case 2403752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr PJ Rothwell v Islam & Co Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2403752/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr PJ Rothwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned on 21 April 2024 and brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal under s.104A ERA 1996, breach of contract, race and religion discrimination, holiday pay and written statement of particulars. The respondent's counterclaim for negligence was withdrawn. The hearing took place over four days at Liverpool before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone.
The Tribunal held the race and religion discrimination claims were out of time, declined to extend time, and in the alternative found them not well-founded. The automatic unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded. The breach of contract claim regarding a £25,000 contractual payment was not well-founded. The s.1 written statement of particulars complaint was dismissed because the respondent was not in breach when proceedings began.
The Tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint, finding the respondent failed to pay accrued holiday pay under regs 14(2) and/or 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998, and ordered the respondent to pay £586.44 net. PDF text truncated from 89,391 characters; mid-judgment reasoning on race/religion claim not fully visible.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010 not presented in time; no jurisdiction. In the alternative, not well-founded. Truncated PDF text (89,391 chars). | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Religion or belief discrimination claim dismissed in the alternative as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.95(1)(c) and s.104A(2) ERA 1996 not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday pay under reg 14(2)/16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £586 |
| Breach of contract | Claim that respondent was in breach of contract for failing to pay £25,000 contractual payment not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 1 ERA written statement of particulars complaint dismissed: respondent not in breach when proceedings began. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £586
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104A(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.