Case 2302165/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Da Silva v AP Cleaning J Services — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302165/2019
- Decision date
- 29 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Dated
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Da Silva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Ashford on 29 October 2019, Employment Judge Martin Dated heard claims by Mr B Da Silva against AP Cleaning J Services. The respondent did not attend, and no response had been entered for claim 2302366/2019. On that claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that his daily rate of pay was £702.00 and that he was entitled to 9 days holiday.
The judgment recorded that the claimant was therefore entitled to £702.00 and that his claim for unpaid holiday pay succeeded. No separate apportionment of the award was made beyond that figure, and the judgment does not record any interest or other additional remedy.
The separate claim numbered 2302165/2019 was dismissed because the claimant said the respondent had now paid the sums due. The reasons do not set out any further findings on that claim, and the only monetary award stated in the judgment is £702.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant's daily rate of pay was £702.00 and that he was entitled to 9 days holiday, and it awarded £702.00 for unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £702 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons state that claim 2302165/2019 was dismissed because the claimant said the respondent had now paid the sums due; the precise legal label is not stated in the reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £702
- 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.