Case 4101128/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Edgar v Evolution Repair Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4101128/2025
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Edgar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because no response had been presented to the claim. On the available material, Employment Judge L Wiseman determined that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages, and ordered payment of £2,374.80 gross, calculated as 120 hours at £19.79 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages for that claim were assessed at £791.60 gross, based on 40 hours at £19.79 per hour. The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered a further gross payment of £2,374.80, again calculated by reference to 120 hours at £19.79 per hour.
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 and ordered payment of the gross sum of £2,374.80, calculated as 120 hours at £19.79 per hour. | Upheld | — | £2,375 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £791.60, calculated as 40 hours at £19.79 per hour. | Upheld | — | £792 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,374.80, calculated as 120 hours at £19.79 per hour. | Upheld | — | £2,375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,541
- 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.