Case 3327680/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kevin Davis v Decypher Technologies Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327680/2019
- Decision date
- 12 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KJ Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kevin Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Kevin Davis's claim for unlawful deduction of wages succeeded in respect of a day's pay on 9 August 2019 and awarded £184.66. It also held that his notice pay claim succeeded and awarded £369.23.
The tribunal further held that the claimant's claim for pay in lieu of accrued untaken holiday at termination under the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded, and awarded £1,107.69 for that claim. The judgment records that these matters were determined at a remote full merits hearing by CVP before Employment Judge KJ Palmer sitting alone.
In addition, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal made an award of 4 weeks' pay in the sum of £3,692.32. The total of the awards recorded in the judgment is £5,353.90.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for a day's pay on 9 August 2019. | Upheld | — | £185 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £369 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for pay in lieu of accrued untaken holiday at termination under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,108 |
| Other | Additional award of 4 weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £3,692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,354
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.