Case 3302612/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Martin v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302612/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Martin
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Judge determined, on the basis of the information before the tribunal and in the absence of any valid response from the respondent, that Peachtree Services Limited had failed to pay Mr D Martin's holiday entitlement. The judgment records that the respondent had not presented a response in time. The tribunal therefore made an order for payment rather than determining any contested liability issues after a full hearing.
The sum awarded was £2,156. The judgment explains that this was calculated as 24.5 days' holiday accrued due, at £88 per day, with the daily rate derived from £11 per hour multiplied by a 40-hour week and divided by five. The tribunal directed that the amount be paid gross, without deduction, and taxable in the hands of the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,156 for unpaid holiday entitlement. It said the figure represented 24.5 days' holiday accrued due at £88 per day, calculated from £11 per hour at a 40-hour week. | Upheld | — | £2,156 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,156
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.