Case 3327800/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bayliss v And Rainfast Limited Held by CVP on 20 APRIL 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327800/2019
- Decision date
- 20 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bayliss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the full merits hearing and had not contacted the tribunal before the hearing started. The tribunal proceeded in his absence, having read the papers and carried out a detailed analysis of the financial documentation. It heard and accepted evidence from Mr A Coyle, Director, and Mr T Blair, Office Manager.
On that evidence, the tribunal found that the Claimant had been paid more than he was entitled to. The overpayments arose in part because he had received subs that had not been recovered, and those overpayments exceeded any unauthorised deductions, including deductions said to relate to training costs. The tribunal also found that he had received at least 12 days' holiday pay, slightly more than he was entitled to for his length of service.
The tribunal held that the burden was on the Claimant to prove his case and that he had failed to do so. It was satisfied that the Respondent did not owe the Claimant any money. The judgment therefore states that the Claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found that the Claimant had been paid more than he was entitled to, including unrecovered subs, so the Respondent did not owe him money. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found that the Claimant had received at least 12 days' holiday pay, which was slightly more than he was entitled to for his length of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.