Case 4100444/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McKenna v SDR Residential Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100444/2025
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McKenna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 22 judgment on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge P O’Donnell determined the case without a response from the respondent, SDR Residential Ltd.
The tribunal upheld a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that £389.03 was due for the period 28/12/2024 to 03/01/2025, but £300 had already been paid, so the amount ordered on that head was £89.03.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s breach of contract complaint in respect of notice. It found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract and awarded damages of £389.03, expressed as one week’s pay.
A further claim for unpaid holiday entitlement was upheld. The tribunal ordered payment of £389.03, described in the judgment as one week’s net pay. The total sum ordered across all heads was £867.09.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 28/12/2024 to 03/01/2025. It ordered £389.03 for that period, less £300 already paid, leaving £89.03. | Upheld | — | £89 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £389.03, described as 1 week's pay. | Upheld | — | £389 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £389.03, described as 1 week's net pay. | Upheld | — | £389 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £867
- 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.