Case 6001538/2025 · Employment Tribunal
G H Ukbu v Twenty Twenty Digital Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001538/2025
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G H Ukbu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to Twenty Twenty Digital Limited after noting the Companies House name. It then found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement.
For that failure, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £634.62. The judgment set out the calculation used to reach that figure: £2,500 per month, equivalent to £30,000 per annum, divided by 52 weeks to give £576.92 per week, then divided by 5 to give £115.38 per day, multiplied by 5.5 days' holiday owed.
The hearing listed for 30 May 2025 was cancelled. The separate notice on interest explained the relevant decision day as 20 May 2025, with interest to run from 21 May 2025 at 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after 14 days, but the judgment itself did not quantify any interest award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £634.62, calculated by reference to a salary of £30,000 per annum and 5.5 days' holiday owed. The judgment also amended the respondent's name to Twenty Twenty Digital Limited. | Upheld | — | £635 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £635
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.