Case 1601271/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Davies v Paycasso Verify Limited dba Xydus — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601271/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Wales Employment Tribunals on 13 May 2024. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the claim could properly be decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and awarded £25,900 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £25,000.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £1,312.50. The total sum payable was £52,212.50 gross. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £25,900 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,313 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £52,213
- 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.