Case 1403269/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Nagy v Heartbreakers (SO15) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403269/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cuthbert Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Nagy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr E Nagy brought a holiday pay claim against Heartbreakers (SO15) Ltd. The respondent did not attend the hearing. Employment Judge Cuthbert heard the case at Exeter by CVP on 19 September 2023 and the judgment was sent to the parties on 10 October 2023.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for holiday pay was well-founded and succeeded because the respondent failed to pay him in lieu of untaken holiday on termination of employment. The appendix recorded that the claimant was employed from 5 October 2022 to 28 January 2023, worked 45 hours per week over five days, and had a salary of £28,000.
The calculation applied a weekly pay figure of £538.46 and holiday entitlement on termination of 1.364 weeks, less 2/5 weeks' holiday taken and less £0 already paid by the respondent. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £734.46, subject to any applicable statutory deductions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant's holiday pay claim well-founded because the respondent failed to pay him in lieu of untaken holiday on termination. The appendix calculated payment in lieu due on termination as 1.364 weeks at £538.36 per week, less £0 already paid. | Upheld | — | £734 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £734
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 14, 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.