Case 3319854/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Leaver v Vinaya Patel Limited, T/A Subway St Ives. — 2020
- Case reference
- 3319854/2019
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Leaver
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant said she had worked 80 hours for the respondent at £7.50 per hour and was due £600. The respondent said it had paid £122.55 on 5 March 2019 and a further payment of the same amount thereafter, and it accepted that £324.53 remained unpaid for 43.27 hours worked.
At this hearing the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £324.53 to the claimant within 7 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The tribunal also recorded that whether the claimant was entitled to any further payment would be determined at a later hearing listed with a two-hour time estimate.
The reasons note that both sides said documents had been provided to the other side or, in the claimant's case, to ACAS, but none of those documents were before the tribunal. The tribunal applied the overriding objective and encouraged the parties to use ACAS to see whether a negotiated compromise could be reached before the further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Partial judgment: the respondent was ordered to pay the admitted sum of £324.53 within 7 days. The tribunal recorded that any further payment claimed by the claimant would be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | £325 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £325
- 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.