Case 2405937/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Liddle v Novus Utility Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405937/2022
- Decision date
- 4 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Liddle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, so the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr M Liddle's holiday entitlement.
The tribunal ordered Novus Utility Services Limited to pay Mr Liddle £500 gross. The judgment states that the sum is gross and that Mr Liddle is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on it.
The written notice on interest stated that, if the sum is not paid in full within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent on 4 November 2022, interest would accrue from 5 November 2022 at 8% per annum under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the tribunal determined the claim without a hearing. It found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £500 gross. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
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.