Case 2402952/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hrivnak v Winner Recruitment (Birmingham) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402952/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hrivnak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Hrivnak, brought a claim for unpaid holiday pay contrary to regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 against Winner Recruitment (Birmingham) Ltd. The case was heard by Employment Judge Ainscough sitting alone on 23 January 2020, with the respondent represented by Miss K Swaine and the claimant not in attendance.
Following the respondent's application of 10 January 2020, the tribunal struck out the holiday pay claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal recorded that the claim was not being actively pursued because of the claimant's failure to comply with case management orders and his non-attendance at the final hearing.
No monetary award was made. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim was for unpaid holiday pay contrary to regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It was struck out on the respondent's application dated 10 January 2020 because it was not being actively pursued, following the claimant's failure to comply with case management orders and his non-attendance at the final hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- regulation 14(2) of the 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.