Case 1301204/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gareth Davies v Mercian Masterplan Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301204/2022
- Decision date
- 1 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gareth Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Birmingham via CVP on 1 September 2022, Employment Judge Boyle found that Mercian Masterplan Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. The deduction arose because the respondent failed to pay Mr Gareth Davies in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave when his employment ended.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Mr Davies £723.08 gross, described in the judgment as the sum due. The only monetary award recorded in the decision was that amount, and no separate breakdown of remedy components was provided.
The judgment also records that no award was made in relation to the complaint that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or unfair dismissal findings are recorded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages arising from the failure to pay the claimant in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £723 |
| Other | The tribunal made no award in respect of the complaint about failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £723
- 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.