Case 1401551/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss K Wells (4) Mr R Tyack v Two Jays Trading Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401551/2023
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss K Wells (4) Mr R Tyack
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Wells and Mr R Tyack brought claims against Two Jays Trading Limited. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal found Miss Wells's unlawful deduction from wages claim well founded and awarded her £1,478.98 gross, and found her accrued but unpaid holiday pay claim well founded and awarded her £850.98 gross.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide Miss Wells with a statement of initial employment particulars in accordance with s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that it was just and equitable to award four weeks' pay, assessed at £2,214.44. Mr Tyack's unlawful deduction from wages claim was also well founded and was awarded £1,875.00 gross, and his accrued but unpaid holiday pay claim was well founded and awarded £998.40 gross. The total award recorded by the judgment was £7,417.80 gross.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claimant: Miss Wells. | Upheld | — | £851 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant: Miss Wells. | Upheld | — | £1,479 |
| Other | Claimant: Miss Wells; failure to provide a statement of initial employment particulars under s.1 ERA 1996; award of 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £2,214 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant: Mr Tyack. | Upheld | — | £1,875 |
| Holiday pay | Claimant: Mr Tyack. | Upheld | — | £998 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,418
- 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.