Case 1806607/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Evans v Singleton Birch Limited HELD by: CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806607/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Evans brought complaints about holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages against Singleton Birch Limited. At the hearing, he accepted in evidence that his holiday pay was included within his annual remuneration. The tribunal noted that he had originally claimed in excess of £29,000, but that this sat in conflict with that admission.
After being given time to consider the position, the claimant amended the claim to a smaller figure of £7,034.26 for a period from 18 September 2017 to 15 March 2020. The tribunal then took an early lunch so that he could formulate the amended case. When the matter resumed, it became clear that the amended claim was not in fact a holiday pay claim and that the tribunal considered it unlikely that any loss had been suffered. The tribunal also noted that there may have been time issues because the amended period one claim had become detached from the period two claim that had gone.
The claimant then indicated that he wished to withdraw the remaining claim after a short period to consult with his brother. The judgment records that the claims of no holiday pay and unauthorised deduction of wages were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claimant initially said he had not been paid for some holidays and later accepted that holiday pay was included within his annual remuneration. The tribunal recorded that the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant made an application for unauthorised deduction of wages but accepted at the outset that he could not pursue it because it had not been set out in his claim form. The tribunal recorded that the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.