Case 2600919/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Benjamin Graves v The Vine Ashby Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600919/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Benjamin Graves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 20 May 2021, Employment Judge Ahmed sat alone. The claimant, Mr Benjamin Graves, appeared in person and the respondent did not appear or have representation. The tribunal entered judgment for the claimant on the unlawful deduction of wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £521.67 net.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide particulars of employment required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded compensation of £924.00 net under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The judgment records that this was the higher amount under section 38(3) and (4).
In calculating that amount, the tribunal assessed the claimant's weekly wage at £231.00, based on an average 30-hour working week at £7.70 per hour. Four weeks' pay therefore came to £924.00. The total award was £1,445.67 net.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £521.67 net in respect of an unlawful deduction of wages. | Upheld | — | £522 |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £924.00 net under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent failed to provide particulars of employment required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was the higher amount, assessed at four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £924 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,446
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 38(3) and (4) 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.