Case 3200930/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Mehmet v Tanber Solutions Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200930/2019
- Decision date
- 29 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Mehmet
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present an ET3 within the required time and after considering the claimant's evidence.
It found that between 6 August 2018 and 31 December 2018 the claimant was prevented from exercising his right to paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 because he was told he had no separate right to be paid for such leave. It also found that when he took leave on ordinary working days, including 25 December 2018, he received no separate remuneration, and that his payslips showed no separate sum for holiday pay.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled both to payment for annual leave taken, limited to public and some bank holidays, and for annual leave he had been prevented from taking. It calculated his entitlement as 11.12 days for the period, using an hourly rate of £10.20 and 7 paid hours per day, producing an award of £794.20 less any proper deductions required by law.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was prevented from exercising his right to paid annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and was not separately remunerated for leave taken. | Upheld | — | £794 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £794
- 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.