Case 2418440/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Yates v Trinity VN Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418440/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Yates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ross sat alone at Manchester remotely by CVP on 21 April 2021. The claimant, Mr A Yates, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal amended the respondent’s name to Trinity VN Limited.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,829.66 within 14 days of the written judgment being sent to the parties. The judgment states that this sum includes one month’s pay in lieu of notice.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim for accrued but untaken holidays on termination was well-founded under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. It awarded 25 days’ holiday, comprising 18 days for the holiday year from 30 June 2019 to 1 July 2020 and 7 days for the holiday year from 1 July 2020 to 8 October 2020, at £84.60 per day, producing £2,115.
The total sum ordered was £3,944.66, payable within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claim well-founded and ordered payment of £1,829.66, described as including one month’s pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,830 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claim for accrued but untaken holidays on termination well-founded and awarded 25 days' holiday at £84.60 per day. | Upheld | — | £2,115 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,945
- 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.