Case 2402692/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McIntosh v Regulux Transport Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402692/2024
- Decision date
- 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter RULE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J McIntosh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim by Mr J McIntosh against Regulux Transport Limited was determined on a Rule 21 basis after the respondent failed to enter a response. Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone at Liverpool, by CVP, held that the claimant had suffered an unlawful deduction of wages and that his complaint under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,006, subject to lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. The judgment states that this figure consisted of £506 gross for unlawful deduction of wages for 2 months and a retained £500 deposit. The final hearing listed for 9 August 2024 was taken out of the list and did not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant suffered an unlawful deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was described as consisting of 2 months' unlawful deduction of wages in the sum of £506 gross and a retained £500 deposit, less lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,006 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,006
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.