Case 4101467/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Milliken v Robert Craig — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101467/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Milliken
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a multi-drop delivery driver for the respondent from 16 November 2021 to 7 December 2021, with an agreed rate of £75 per day. The tribunal found that he was not provided with a written contract and there was no written authorisation allowing deductions from his wages. The respondent argued that sums said to be owed by the claimant, including costs connected with the return and cleaning of a van and damage to it, offset any wages due, but the tribunal found those deductions were not authorised by statute, contract, or prior written consent.
On the amount due, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he worked 20 days. It noted that the respondent produced no evidence to support the contention that he had worked only 16 days, and that the respondent had not lodged a bundle of documents. Applying the claimant's evidence, the tribunal found he had earned £1,500, had been paid £800 in total, and was therefore owed a shortfall of £700. The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction of wages claim under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded £700.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Although the ET1 ticked redundancy pay and notice pay, the claimant confirmed at hearing that he was seeking wages owed for work done, and the tribunal proceeded on an unlawful deduction of wages claim. The respondent's separate contract counterclaim was not before the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £700
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.27 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.