Case 2206260/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Uccheddu v Black Truffle Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206260/2021
- Decision date
- 29 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Uccheddu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Having considered the ET1, Regional Employment Judge Wade determined that the remaining claim could properly be decided without a hearing and entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully failed to allow the claimant to take holiday to which he was entitled. It awarded compensation under regulation 30(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in the sum of the holiday pay not received, assessed as £673.79.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £673.79 and to account to HMRC for any tax and National Insurance due. No separate breakdown of the award beyond that sum was recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to file an ET3. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to allow the claimant to take holiday to which he was entitled and awarded compensation under Regulation 30(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £674 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £674
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £674
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Regulation 30(4) 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.