Case 1601526/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Edward Davies v Swansea BAO Limited Heard by: Video (CVP) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601526/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Edward Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Evans sat alone by CVP on 6 March 2023. The respondent, Swansea BAO Limited, did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal recorded that reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons would be provided unless requested. The claimant was Edward Davies.
The tribunal declared that the respondent failed to give the claimant itemised pay statements for the period from 13 July 2022 to 11 September 2022. It also found that the claimant’s complaint of non-payment of wages contrary to Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded.
In remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,613.40 gross. It calculated this as gross wages due of £4,326.92 less gross wages paid of £2,713.52, leaving gross wages unpaid and due of £1,613.40. The tribunal noted that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Declaration that the respondent failed to give the claimant itemised pay statements for the period 13 July 2022 to 11 September 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of non-payment of wages contrary to Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded; the tribunal ordered payment of the unpaid gross wages. | Upheld | — | £1,613 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,613
- 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.