Case 2600214/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Patchitt v JW Lincolnshire Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600214/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Patchitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 24 February 2025. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,023.32. It also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £10,080.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £411.43. The judgment does not set out any separate interest figure or apportionment beyond the individual awards recorded for each head of claim.
All future hearings were cancelled. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £15,514.75.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,023.32. | Upheld | — | £5,023 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £10,080. | Upheld | — | £10,080 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to the respondent having failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awards £411.43; this is treated as holiday_pay. | Upheld | — | £411 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,515
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.