Case 1310572/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rybicki v Bouden Travel Limited, T/A Bouden Coach Travel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310572/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wilkinson Representation
- Venue
- The Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rybicki
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal substituted the correct respondent as Bouden Travel Limited, T/A Bouden Coach Travel, and allowed the claim to proceed despite discrepancies in the early conciliation number and the respondent name on the certificate and claim form. It also recorded that the hearing proceeded in the respondent's absence after notice had been given and telephone contact attempts had been made on the morning of the hearing.
On the substantive claim, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for accrued but untaken holiday at the end of the contract of employment. The written judgment records that this claim succeeded and that the respondent was ordered to pay £1,080 gross.
The judgment states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The written record therefore contains only the outcome and the holiday pay award, with no further elaboration of the tribunal's reasoning or any separate compensatory components.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay for accrued but untaken holiday at the end of the employment contract and ordered payment of £1,080 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,080
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 34 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- rule 12(2ZA) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- rule 12(2A) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals 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.