Case 4102358/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102358/2022 Mr B Hobbs v Procraft Joinery Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102358/2022
- Decision date
- 15 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102358/2022 Mr B Hobbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response and was not present or represented. Employment Judge M Kearns determined the claim on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and issued judgment on 14 July 2022, entered in the register on 15 July 2022.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £792.50. It also upheld the claim that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered a further £792.50.
No separate breakdown of the award beyond those two sums is recorded in the judgment. The total amount ordered was £1,585.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £792.50. | Upheld | — | £793 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £792.50. | Upheld | — | £793 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,585
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.