Case 2601165/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Employment tribunal upholds holiday-pay claim against Quack Recruitment Limited part of Quack Group
The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers, and the hearing listed for 2 September 2022 was cancelled. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement.
- Case reference
- 2601165/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Idemudia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made on the papers, and the hearing listed for 2 September 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent, Quack Recruitment Limited part of Quack Group, to pay Mr I Idemudia £532.64. No other claim outcome or remedy breakdown is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the tribunal found it had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £533 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £533
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.