Case 2202183/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v JRL Reddington Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202183/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance by the deadline of 30 June 2020 and did not apply for an extension of time. Employment Judge Nicolle therefore determined the claim on the papers under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, without a hearing.
The tribunal found that, as an employee or worker, Mr Murphy was entitled to payment in respect of accrued holiday entitlement for his engagement with the respondent between 1 July 2019 and 24 April 2020. It recorded that he had an annual holiday entitlement of 28 days under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and had received no holiday pay during the engagement.
On that basis, the tribunal calculated a prorated accrued holiday entitlement of 22.5 days. Using annual gross weekly pay of £1,750, it calculated an annual gross figure of £91,000 and a daily rate of £249.32, producing a total payment for statutorily accrued holiday entitlement of £5,609.59. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant and noted that, where payment is made gross, the claimant is responsible for applicable tax and employee national insurance contributions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim for accrued holiday entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 for the period 1 July 2019 to 24 April 2020. The respondent did not file an ET3, and the tribunal determined the claim under Rule 21 without a hearing. | Upheld | — | £5,610 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,610
- across all upheld claims
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.