Case 3312977/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Jarvis v Regent Garage (NFK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312977/2020
- Decision date
- 19 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Jarvis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Jarvis, brought claims against Regent Garage (NFK) Limited for unfair dismissal, non-payment of wages, and unpaid annual leave. Sitting alone, Employment Judge Hanning heard the case remotely on 19 July 2021. The Tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded because the respondent did not dismiss the claimant.
The Tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim for unlawful deduction from wages, described in the judgment as the claim for non-payment of wages, and dismissed that claim. By contrast, the claim for unpaid annual leave succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,200.03 in respect of that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant, so the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim for non-payment of wages and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid annual leave was well founded and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,200.03. | Upheld | — | £1,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,200
- 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.