Case 6000970/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Smart v Savoy Ventures Ltd (in Administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000970/2025
- Decision date
- 28 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Attendances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Smart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend the hearing before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer at London (South) by CVP on 28 April 2026. The tribunal found that Mr D Smart was owed a protective award for a 90 day period from 30 August 2024, with the award based on average gross weekly pay of £461.27.
The tribunal also found that Savoy Ventures Limited (in Administration) had unlawfully deducted wages from the claimant between June 2024 and August 2024. It ordered the respondent to pay £3,306.88, described as the outstanding amount after payment by the RPS.
The judgment recorded that the claimant is responsible for any tax due on any amount paid under the judgment. It did not set out a single total award figure or identify any interest, basic award, compensatory award, or injury to feelings award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award awarded for a 90 day period from 30 August 2024, based on average gross weekly pay of £461.27. The judgment states the period and weekly rate but not a final protective award sum. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The sum awarded is the amount outstanding after payment by the RPS. | Upheld | — | £3,307 |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.