Case 6018111/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Davies v Rase VS Limited t/a Rase Veterinary Centre — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018111/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Butler, sitting alone at Nottingham by CVP on 22 April 2025, heard the claim of Miss Y Davies against Rase VS Limited t/a Rase Veterinary Centre. The Claimant appeared in person; the Respondent was represented by Ms K Dando and Ms J Watkins.
The Judge found that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant one week's wages and two days of accrued holiday pay. The Respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £1,538.88 in respect of unpaid wages and the gross sum of £439.68 in respect of accrued but unpaid holiday pay, making a total gross sum payable of £1,978.56.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and, under Rule 60, written reasons will not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record. The judgment and reasons were sent to the parties on 28 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the Respondent failed to pay one week's wages; gross sum of £1,538.88 ordered. | Upheld | — | £1,539 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the Respondent failed to pay two days of accrued holiday pay; gross sum of £439.68 ordered. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £440 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,979
- 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.