Case 2305633/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Benny Jose v RVB Transcendence Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305633/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Benny Jose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBenny Jose brought complaints against RVB Transcendence Limited heard by Employment Judge Evans at London South by video on 1 October 2025. The tribunal rejected the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding that the respondent did not make unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages.
The tribunal upheld the holiday pay complaint. It found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of holiday that had accrued but had not been taken. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £112.44 for 0.73 of a day of annual leave that had accrued but not been taken, and recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance due on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent did not make unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the holiday pay complaint well-founded because the respondent failed to pay in accordance with the Working Time Regulations 1998 in respect of holiday that had accrued but had not been taken. | Upheld | — | £112 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £112
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.