Case 2406724/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Davies v Znergi Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406724/2022
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Leach decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers, and the listed hearing on 6 December 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that ZNERGI LTD had failed to pay Mr A Davies's accrued annual leave entitlement of 44 hours. It ordered the respondent to pay £418 gross, calculated as 44 hours at £9.50 per hour, being the applicable national minimum wage rate used in the judgment.
A notice on interest accompanied the decision. It recorded the relevant decision day as 25 November 2022, the calculation day as 26 November 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum. No separate interest figure was set out in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time and was found to have failed to pay the claimant's accrued annual leave entitlement of 44 hours. The award was £418 gross, calculated as 44 hours x £9.50 at the applicable national minimum wage rate. | Upheld | — | £418 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £418
- 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.