Case 2203925/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Nioi v Farm Fetch Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203925/2022
- Decision date
- 29 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Nioi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for 9 days' pay for work done between 21 and 30 September 2021 because it was submitted outside the time limit for such claims. No other reason for dismissal was given for that part of the claim.
The claimant succeeded on holiday pay. The tribunal found that on termination he should have been paid for 6.33 days, and using a gross daily rate of £123 it calculated the holiday pay due as £778.59 gross. The claimant also succeeded on his claim for pay for May 2022, when he worked 4 days, and the tribunal calculated that sum as £492 gross.
The respondent was ordered to pay £1,270.5 in total within 14 days, less deductions for tax and national insurance contributions for which the respondent was to account.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for 9 days' pay for work done between 21 and 30 September 2021; dismissed as outside the time limit for such claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay on termination was assessed at 6.33 days at a gross daily rate of £123. | Upheld | — | £779 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for pay for 4 days worked in May 2022, calculated at 4 x £123 gross. | Upheld | — | £492 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,271
- 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.