Case 2408887/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mitchell Carey v Olivex (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408887/2021
- Decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mitchell Carey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mitchell Carey brought a claim against Olivex (UK) Limited which was heard by Judge Miller-Varey sitting alone at Manchester on 13 December 2021. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal treated the respondent’s email of 11 December 2021 as an application to adjourn the hearing, refused that application, and proceeded with the liability hearing under rule 47.
The tribunal held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holidays. It therefore found the respondent liable and ordered it to pay the claimant the gross sum of £775.79. No separate breakdown of the award was given in the judgment.
The claimant also wished to pursue a preparation time order. That application was not dealt with at the hearing and was left to be determined in writing after further submissions. The tribunal directed the claimant to set out the basis on which rule 76 was engaged and the time spent on the case, and directed the respondent to provide any grounds of resistance. The tribunal noted that the hourly rate under rule 79(2) was £41 per hour.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holidays and ordered payment of the gross sum of £775.79. The preparation time order application was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £776 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £776
- across all upheld claims
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.