Case 2415232/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Svarc v Richmond Hall Farm Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2415232/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Svarc
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Manchester on 10 February 2020, before Employment Judge Ross, the claimant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal granted leave to amend the respondent's name to Richmond Hall Farm Limited.
The only substantive claim recorded in the judgment was the claimant's claim for non-payment of accrued but unpaid holiday pay on termination of employment. That claim was found to be well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,733.40 within 14 days of the date of the judgment. The figure was calculated as 214 hours at £8.10 per hour for the period from 18 January 2019 to termination on 24 October 2019, on the basis that the claimant worked a 60-hour week. The written judgment also included the standard notice that sums unpaid after 14 days may attract statutory interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for non-payment of accrued but unpaid holiday pay on termination of employment succeeded. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,733.40 within 14 days, calculated as 214 hours x £8.10 for the period 18 January 2019 to 24 October 2019 on the basis that the claimant worked a 60-hour week. | Upheld | — | £1,733 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,733
- 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.