Case 6008903/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Bamber v Tetra Installations Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6008903/2024
- Decision date
- 24 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Bamber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Employment Judge Holmes Date decided that a determination could properly be made on the claim in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's accrued but untaken holiday entitlement. On that basis, the holiday pay claim was upheld and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £980.40. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for accounting to HMRC for any tax and employee's national insurance contributions on that sum.
The written record also states that the hearing listed for 7 February 2025 was cancelled. The separate notice on interest explains the applicable interest regime, but the judgment itself does not specify any interest amount awarded in this case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal determined the claim on the papers under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. It found the respondent had not paid the claimant's accrued but untaken holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £980 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £980
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.