Case 1405254/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Gilvray v The Greyhound Midsomer Norton Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405254/2019
- Decision date
- 20 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Gilvray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment made because no response had been received and the judge was satisfied there was sufficient evidence before the tribunal. The respondent, The Greyhound Midsomer Norton Ltd, did not defend the claim. Regional Employment Judge Pirani gave judgment on 17 February 2020 and it was sent to the parties on 20 February 2020.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £2,121.00 gross, described in the judgment as four weeks plus one day. It also upheld the claim for unpaid holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £806.40 gross, calculated as 8 days at £100.80 per day. The total award recorded by the figures in the judgment is £2,927.40 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,121.00, described as 4 weeks plus one day. | Upheld | — | £2,121 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £806.40 gross, stated as 8 days at £100.80 per day. | Upheld | — | £806 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,927
- 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.