Case 6012865/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Robert Nowak v Mach Recruitment Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012865/2025
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham via CvP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Robert Nowak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short judgment on a holiday pay complaint brought by Robert Nowak against Mach Recruitment Limited. Neither party attended the hearing on 1 August 2025, and the Employment Judge proceeded in their absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure after the clerk's telephone calls to both parties went unanswered.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not produced a witness statement or any supporting documentary evidence, and the respondent had also provided no statements or documentation. In deciding the case, the judge considered the claim form, the correspondence from the claimant, and the respondent's response.
The claimant's last email, dated 29 July 2025, asserted that he had been "defrauded of holiday hours" and sought payment for missing holiday hours together with compensation for time spent dealing with Acas and the proceedings. The tribunal nevertheless found the holiday pay complaint was not well founded and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the complaint in respect of holiday pay was not well-founded. Both parties failed to attend the hearing, and the claimant had not produced a witness statement or supporting documentary evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.