Case 4101173/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Banks v Falkirk Car Carriers Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4101173/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Banks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Banks brought claims arising from sums withheld from his wages after damage was caused to a Range Rover he had been transporting. Falkirk Car Carriers Ltd relied on clause 8 of the contract, which allowed deductions for negligent or wilful damage, and said it was entitled to recover repair and transport costs from the claimant's wages.
The tribunal held that the respondent had not proved that the claimant's negligence caused the damage. It accepted that the respondent suspected the claimant had caused the damage, but found there was no evidence beyond assumptions and inference to establish the necessary primary facts. On that basis, clause 8 did not justify the deductions and the claimant's Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim succeeded.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's separate contentions that he should be paid for work said to have been done on 26 October 2019 and for parking and toll expenses. It preferred the respondent's evidence that 26 October was an unpaid trial before employment started, and it was not persuaded that the claimant had submitted the receipts required by clause 12.2 of the contract. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,423.56.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the claim as a Section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim. It rejected the respondent's reliance on clause 8 of the contract because the respondent did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant's negligence caused the damage used to justify the deductions. The reasons record the net wage figures as £701.32, £331.60 and £380.64, while paragraph 54 orders payment of £1,423.56. | Upheld | — | £1,424 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,424
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 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.