Case 1600451/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Clancy (First Claimant) Mr D Thomas (Second Claimant) v 414 Social Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600451/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Clancy (First Claimant) Mr D Thomas (Second Claimant)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cardiff by CVP on 25 August 2022, before Employment Judge R Evans, the Tribunal determined the Second Claimant's claims only. The Second Claimant succeeded on breach of contract, unauthorised deduction from wages, and holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The awards were stated to be gross sums of £538.46, £215.38, and £1,048.90 respectively, giving a total of £1,802.74. The judgment also recorded that the Second Claimant must account to HMRC for any tax payable once the judgment is satisfied.
The First Claimant's claim had already been adjourned administratively on 23 August 2022 and was not determined in this judgment. The Tribunal directed that the First Claimant's case be listed for a later hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone to decide liability and quantum, with the Second Claimant excused from attending that later hearing. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Gross sum awarded to the Second Claimant. | Upheld | — | £538 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum awarded to the Second Claimant; the judgment states the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £215 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998; gross sum awarded to the Second Claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,049 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,803
- 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.