Case 3313313/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Pisavadia v Formula One Auto Centres Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313313/2019
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Pisavadia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Reading on 21 February 2020 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto. The claimant, Mr D Pisavadia, appeared in person and the respondent, Formula One Auto Centres Limited, was represented by Mr Ian Keely and Ms Sophie Mitchell.
The written judgment records that the claimant’s claims for breach of contract and unpaid wages succeeded. No further factual findings are set out in the short written record, and no separate analysis is provided of how the two heads of claim were distinguished.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £474.01. The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal rules.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant’s breach of contract claim succeeded. The written record does not split the award between this claim and the unpaid wages claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this head as a claim for unpaid wages and states that it succeeded. The written record does not split the award between this claim and the breach of contract claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £474
- 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.