Case 3300953/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ella Davies v Vinaya Patel Limited, T/A Subway St Ives. — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300953/2021
- Decision date
- 6 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Ella Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Ella Davies, succeeded on a claim of unauthorised deduction from wages. Employment Judge Michell found that £117.60 was due, representing 24.5 hours of unpaid wages at an hourly rate of £4.80. The respondent, Vinaya Patel Ltd t/a Subway St Ives, did not appear or take part in the hearing.
The tribunal also made a separate statutory award of £148 under s38(3) of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent failed to provide the claimant with initial employment particulars required by s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The total judgment sum was £265.60. Written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £117.60, described as 24.5 hours of unpaid wages at £4.80 per hour. | Upheld | — | £118 |
| Other | An award of £148 was made under s38(3) of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide initial employment particulars under s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £148 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £266
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s38(3) Employment Act 2002
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.