Case 1400157/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B May v Nightingales Removals Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400157/2019
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B May
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Bristol on 16 August 2019, Employment Judge Livesey heard the claimant’s claims against Nightingales Removals Ltd. The claimant was in person and the respondent was represented by its Managing Director. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s pay and awarded £397.50.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant the value of his accrued but untaken holiday, and awarded £600. It further found that the claimant had not been provided with written particulars of employment and, under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, it was just and equitable to award 4 weeks’ pay, assessed at £1,080. The total award therefore came to £2,077.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from the claimant’s pay and awarded £397.50. | Upheld | — | £398 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant the value of his accrued but untaken holiday and awarded £600.00. | Upheld | — | £600 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been provided with written particulars of employment and, under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, awarded a further sum of 4 weeks’ pay, being £1,080. | Upheld | — | £1,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,078
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.