Case 1402582/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R. Davies (father) v Mr R. Cater (Consultant) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402582/2020
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R. Davies (father)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smail held that Paschoe House LLP was in breach of contract because it failed to introduce a bonus scheme during the Claimant's probationary period on the terms set out in the judgment, namely a scheme at no more than 10% of salary to commence at the end of that period. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay damages of £1,791.83 within 14 days.
The judgment then states that, save for that breach of contract finding, the Claimant's remaining claims were dismissed. The extracted text does not set out separate written reasons for each of those dismissed claims, but it records that full oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach because the Respondent failed to introduce a bonus scheme during the Claimant's probationary period on the terms stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,792 |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed by the final sentence of the judgment; the extracted text gives no separate reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed by the final sentence of the judgment; the extracted text gives no separate reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed by the final sentence of the judgment; the extracted text gives no separate reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed by the final sentence of the judgment; the extracted text gives no separate reasons for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,792
- 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.