Case 2303969/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance. v Msg Recruitment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303969/2019
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Representation
- Venue
- Croydon remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance.
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ashish Kumar, brought a claim received on 12 September 2019 seeking holiday pay of £60.20 in respect of employment as a chef between 29 May and 4 July 2019. The respondent named in the ET1 was MSG Recruitment Ltd. No response was entered, although the tribunal noted correspondence from Greenfield Recovery, who appeared to have been appointed as liquidators of MSG Recruitment Ltd in November 2019, and that there was no company registered at Companies House under that name.
The hearing was converted to a CVP hearing listed to begin at 2 pm on 9 February 2021. By 2.15 pm no one had attended on either side. In the claimant's absence, and because of uncertainty as to the correct name of the respondent, Employment Judge Hargrove rejected the claim as unproven.
The judgment records that the claimant's claim of unpaid holiday was dismissed as unproven and not well-founded. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for £60.20 in holiday pay was dismissed as unproven and not well-founded. The claimant did not attend the hearing, no response was entered, and the tribunal also noted uncertainty as to the correct name of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.