Case 2417368/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Haplin v MWS Joinery Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417368/2020
- Decision date
- 1 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Haplin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in favour of Mr L Haplin against MWS Joinery Services Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement on termination of employment. It recorded that the claimant was a worker and had accrued 26 days' annual leave when his employment ended.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had been paid £150 per day while working for the respondent. On that basis, it ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £3,900 under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, representing the unpaid holiday entitlement. The judgment did not identify any other heads of claim or any separate split of the award.
The attached interest notice stated that, if the award is not paid within 14 days of the relevant decision day, interest may accrue under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. The notice recorded 1 April 2021 as the relevant decision day, 2 April 2021 as the calculation day, and an interest rate of 8%, but the judgment itself did not calculate or award a specific interest figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £3,900 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,900
- 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.