Case 1362899/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Martin Davey v PMP Recruitment Limited (in administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1362899/2021
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Date
- Venue
- Birmingham West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Martin Davey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the respondent's correct title was PMP Recruitment Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by an in-house solicitor.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was made out. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the full sum of £263.06 by 4pm on 5 January 2022.
The claimant's unlawful deduction of wages claim, sickness pay claim, and breach of contract claim under the disciplinary procedure were each found not made out or not well founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally, with written reasons available only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the holiday pay claim for £263.06 was made out and orders payment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £263 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the unlawful deduction of wages claim was not made out and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment separately states that the sickness pay claim was not made out and was dismissed. The legal classification is not further explained in the written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claim for breach of contract under the disciplinary procedure was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £263
- 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.