Case 2402455/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Davies v Oakbay Windows Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402455/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester by Employment Judge Ainscough on 24 August 2022. The written record identifies four issues: breach of contract, entitlement to leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998, unlawful deduction from wages, and failure to provide a statement of employment particulars.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Successful claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave in accordance with regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; gross award of £132.60. | Upheld | — | £133 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Successful claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; gross award of £105.60. | Upheld | — | £106 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a statement of employment particulars and made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002; gross award of £1,768. | Upheld | — | £1,768 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,006
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.