Case 1601651/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R James v Luiza Davey — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601651/2019
- Decision date
- 21 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brace issued a Rule 21 judgment in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Luiza Davey. The judgment states that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's holiday pay claim in the sum of £576.92 and also upheld an expenses claim in the sum of £50.00. No additional findings of fact or detailed reasoning are set out in the extracted text.
The judgment records a total award of £626.92. It also states that the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Uphold a holiday pay claim under Rule 21; the judgment does not set out further reasoning. | Upheld | — | £577 |
| Other | The judgment also upheld an expenses claim for £50.00; no further legal basis is given in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £50 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £627
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.