Case 3313732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kaci Matei v Far Cotton Working Men’s Club — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313732/2022
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kaci Matei
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 remedy judgment on the papers after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend the remedy hearing. Employment Judge Hutchings, sitting alone, determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded £205.44, described as one week’s notice calculated on the basis of 6 hours per day at an hourly rate of £8.56, using a 4-day working week.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. It awarded £1,181.28 gross for 23 days of untaken holiday at the end of employment, calculated on the basis of a 6-hour shift pattern and the same hourly rate of £8.56.
The total amount payable was £1,386.72.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week’s notice pay. | Upheld | — | £205 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded gross holiday pay for 23 untaken days at the stated rate. | Upheld | — | £1,181 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,387
- 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.