Case 2409556/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Binnie v Fairhaven Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409556/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Binnie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Fairhaven Group Limited did not contest the claimant's claim and agreed the sums claimed. The tribunal held that Mr D Binnie's complaint of failure to pay sums due under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded.
The award was made in respect of untaken but accrued holiday pay calculated by reference to two periods: 75.77 hours at £8.21 per hour, producing £622.07, and 68.79 hours at £9.00 per hour, producing £619.11. The total sum ordered was £1,241.18 gross, with the judgment stating that the claimant should account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance due on it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent did not contest the claim and agreed the sums claimed. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded in respect of 75.77 hours of untaken but accrued holiday at £8.21 per hour (£622.07) and 68.79 hours at £9.00 per hour (£619.11), totalling £1,241.18 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,241 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,241
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.