Case 2420656/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fitton v Alex Hugo International Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2420656/2020
- Decision date
- 5 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fitton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Fitton presented a single claim for holiday pay. He did not provide the Tribunal with details of the amount claimed or how it was calculated, did not respond to the Tribunal's request for particulars, and did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had made attempts to contact him and to resolve the matter, but those attempts were unsuccessful.
The respondent's payroll evidence showed that when Mr Fitton left employment in October 2020 he had accrued but not taken two days' holiday. Mrs Holmes said one day of holiday pay was worth £146.15, making the total £292.30. The respondent confirmed that it was still willing to pay that amount and consented to judgment being entered in that sum against Alex Hugo International Limited.
The Tribunal therefore entered judgment by consent for £292.30 representing two days' accrued but untaken holiday pay. The judgment also corrected the respondent's name to Alex Hugo International Limited. No separate remedy breakdown beyond that agreed holiday pay sum was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant sought unpaid holiday pay. The respondent's records showed two days of accrued but untaken holiday on leaving employment in October 2020, valued at £146.15 per day, and the respondent consented to judgment in the sum of £292.30. | Settled | — | £292 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £292
- 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.