Case 1805178/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J R J Scott v Ryedale Logistics Ltd (York) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805178/2021
- Decision date
- 2 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J R J Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Scott brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages against Ryedale Logistics Ltd (York). The respondent accepted that it had withheld wages, but said it was entitled to do so under the self-employed services contract by way of offset against alleged damage to a van. The tribunal first had to decide whether the claimant was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, because that question determined jurisdiction under the wages provisions.
The tribunal found that, despite the contract describing the arrangement as self-employed, the reality of the working relationship showed worker status. It noted that the respondent set the pay rates, provided uniform, fuel, training and equipment, and that the text messages showed the claimant needed to seek permission for time off and could not simply withdraw his availability at short notice. The tribunal relied on the approach in Autoclenz and Uber and concluded that there was a contract, personal service, mutuality of obligation and sufficient control by the respondent.
On the deduction issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been paid and that £340 of wages was being withheld. It rejected the respondent's reliance on paragraph 10 of the contract, finding that the term was too vague and too widely drafted to authorise the deduction for damage in the circumstances, and that it did not clearly state that such sums were to be recovered by deduction from wages. The tribunal also found there was no evidence of written agreement or consent by the claimant before the deduction was made.
The tribunal therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay £340. It rejected the claimant's additional request for £600 said to have been incurred for solicitor's costs, finding that sum was not directly attributable to the deduction. The tribunal also found there were no aggravated features within s.12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and made no penalty order to the Secretary of State.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was a worker within s.230 ERA 1996 and that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction by withholding all wages. Paragraph 10 of the self-employed services contract was held too vague and imprecise to authorise the deduction, and there was no written agreement to it before it was made. The tribunal awarded £340; the separate claim for £600 solicitor's costs was rejected as not directly attributable to the deduction, and no penalty was ordered under s.12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £340 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £340
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and ors
- Uber BV v Aslam and Ors [2021] UKSC 5
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- contra proferentem rule
- s.12A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.