Case 2603362/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Davidson v Everyman Motor Racing Activities Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603362/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Varnam Representation
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Davidson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Varnam heard the case in Leicester on 29 April 2022, with Miss S Davidson appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mrs K Sanderson. The written judgment records two upheld monetary claims: unlawful deductions from wages and a failure to pay a gross sum due on termination for accrued but untaken annual leave.
The tribunal found that the unlawful deductions from wages totalled £564.93 gross. It also found that £276.90 gross remained due to the claimant on termination in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave. The judgment does not set out detailed written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a total gross sum of £841.83, reflecting the two amounts found due. The written record notes that the judgment was sent to the parties on 10 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages, totalling £564.93 gross. | Upheld | — | £565 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to pay £276.90 gross on termination in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £277 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £842
- 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.