Case 2404703/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Edwards v Haku Trading Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2404703/2022
- Decision date
- 10 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined the claim under Rule 21 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. On the merits recorded in the judgment, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £449.96, calculated as 50.5 hours at £8.91 per hour.
The separate claim for unauthorised deduction from wages for arrears of pay did not proceed to an award. The judgment states that this claim was dismissed upon withdrawal because the sums due had been paid to the claimant. The written record also included the standard notice on interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating that interest would be payable only if the award remained unpaid after 14 days from the relevant decision day, but no separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Rule 21 judgment; respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The award was calculated as 50.5 hours x £8.91 per hour. | Upheld | — | £450 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay was dismissed upon withdrawal after the sums due had been paid to the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £450
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.