Case 6036255/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Watkins v Segregated Payments Ltd Heard at Leeds by video — 2026
- Case reference
- 6036255/2025
- Decision date
- 12 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Watkins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints that the respondent was in breach of contract by not paying him for his notice period and by not paying him holiday pay. The Tribunal found that those complaints were presented outside the limitation period in article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, where it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims because it had no jurisdiction to hear them. In the alternative, it stated that the claimant resigned without notice on 2 April 2025 and had no entitlement to notice pay, and that he had been paid for any outstanding holiday entitlement as at that date.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint that the respondent was in breach of contract by not paying the claimant for his notice period. The Tribunal struck out the claim as out of time and, alternatively, stated that the claimant resigned without notice on 2 April 2025 and had no entitlement to notice pay. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint that the respondent was in breach of contract by not paying holiday pay. The Tribunal struck out the claim as out of time and, alternatively, stated that the claimant was paid for any holiday entitlement outstanding as at 2 April 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- 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.