Case 1307903/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Edy v Evcia Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307903/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Midlands West Tribunal via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Edy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 12 September 2024 before Employment Judge Noons, the respondent did not attend. The tribunal gave judgment for the claimant Mr S Edy on all three monetary claims recorded in the judgment. It found that unlawful deductions from wages were well founded in relation to salary owed for the month that the claimant worked for Evcia Ltd, and ordered payment of £7,500.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim in relation to unreimbursed expenses, awarding £385.33. It further upheld the claim for unpaid notice pay and ordered £1,730.77 for one week's notice pay that had not been paid. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unlawful deductions from wages well founded and ordered payment of £7,500 for salary owed for the month the claimant worked for the respondent. | Upheld | — | £7,500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim succeeded and ordered £385.33 for expenses incurred by the claimant and not reimbursed by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £385 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid notice pay succeeded and ordered £1,730.77 for one week's notice pay not paid to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,731 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,616
- 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.