Case 2601665/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Beri v Everyman Motor Racing Activities Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601665/2019
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Beri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Hutchinson dealt with the claim on the papers. The respondent, Everyman Motor Racing Activities Limited, did not attend and the tribunal made the orders set out in the judgment dated 8 August 2019.
The tribunal upheld the claimant Mr P Beri’s claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £2,923.15 gross. It also upheld the claim that holiday entitlement had not been paid and ordered payment of £746.00.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of initial particulars of employment and ordered payment of £2,032.00. The judgment records no separate findings on any discrimination, dismissal, or redundancy issues, and no additional remedy components beyond the three sums awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,923.15 for an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,923 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered £746.00. | Upheld | — | £746 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of initial particulars of employment and ordered £2,032.00. | Upheld | — | £2,032 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,701
- 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.