Case 4102484/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mallaby v Jolly Harvester Public House — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102484/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mallaby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a sole claim for holiday pay. The tribunal first held that the claim had been presented out of time, but extended time because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time. The judge accepted the claimant's evidence that he was unaware of the tribunal time limit, had no previous tribunal experience, had not been told of any time limit by CAB, and was dealing with college and work pressures when the claim arose.
On the merits, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had worked 279 hours for the respondent between 2 January 2018 and 18 September 2018 on a zero-hours basis, was not self-employed, and had taken no holidays and received no holiday pay on termination. Applying the standard holiday calculation of 12.07% of time worked, the tribunal found an entitlement of 33.66 hours at an hourly rate of £5.90, producing a sum due of £198.63. That amount was awarded to the claimant and the respondent was ordered to pay it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim was presented about three weeks late, but the tribunal extended time on the not reasonably practicable test before awarding accrued but untaken holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £199 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £199
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not 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.