Case 2409683/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter Davis (1) Mr John Meszaros (2) v AS Theo Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409683/2023
- Decision date
- 28 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Greer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Peter Davis (1) Mr John Meszaros (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 18 April 2024, Employment Judge Greer dealt with two claims brought by Mr Peter Davis and Mr John Meszaros against AS Theo Limited under case numbers 2409683/2023 and 2409684/2023. The judgment records that the claims were for unlawful deduction of wages and unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal held that both claims were duplicates of earlier claims, 2408954/2023 and 2408955/2023, which Employment Judge Fairhurst had considered on 31 January 2024 and which had already been determined in the claimants' favour. On that basis, the duplicate claims in this case were struck out.
The judgment also notes, for the avoidance of doubt, that a third linked matter, 2408956/2023, had not been struck out and continued. No monetary award was made in this judgment because the present claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out this claim because it was a duplicate of case 2408954/2023, which had already been determined in the claimants' favour. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal struck out this claim because it was a duplicate of case 2408955/2023, which had already been determined in the claimants' favour. | Struck out | — | — |
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.