Case 2603877/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nathan Johnson and Mr Gary Davies v Mercury AVS Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603877/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nathan Johnson and Mr Gary Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Nottingham on 12 March 2021 before Employment Judge P Britton, sitting alone. Mr Nathan Johnson and Mr Gary Davies appeared in person, and Mercury AVS Ltd was represented by its director, Mr Tom Marvin. The judgment records that the hearing was remote because of the Covid-19 pandemic and that the parties did not object to that format.
The tribunal upheld Mr Johnson's claim for outstanding holiday pay and awarded him £736.16 gross, to be paid net of PAYE. It also upheld Mr Davies's identical claim and awarded him £1,120.76 gross, likewise payable net of PAYE.
The written record gives no further reasons because reasons had been given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were requested within the relevant period. No discrimination, dismissal, or other additional heads of claim are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Mr Johnson's claim for outstanding holiday pay succeeded in the gross sum of £736.16, payable net of PAYE. | Upheld | — | £736 |
| Holiday pay | Mr Davies's claim for outstanding holiday pay likewise succeeded in the gross sum of £1,120.76, payable net of PAYE. | Upheld | — | £1,121 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,857
- 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.