Case 1802414/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McIver v A & A Coach Travel — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802414/2019
- Decision date
- 8 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McIver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment, the tribunal found that A & A Coach Travel had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr A McIver's wages and ordered the respondent to pay £2,880 gross. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,944.
The tribunal dismissed the separate claim relating to tax deducted but not paid. It held that this deduction was not unauthorised and said that recovery of the tax was a matter for the Revenue. No separate interest or other remedy is recorded in the judgment, and the total sums ordered were £4,824.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,880. | Upheld | — | £2,880 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned tax deducted but not paid. The tribunal found the deduction was not unauthorised and said recovery was a matter for the Revenue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,944. | Upheld | — | £1,944 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,824
- 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.