Case 4102578/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William McClymont v Represented by:10 Mr L Knowles - Lay Representative Red Atlas Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102578/2024
- Decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William McClymont
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages arising from the respondent's failure to pay wages due on 1 December 2023. The respondent lodged no defence, had been properly served, and did not appear, so the tribunal proceeded in its absence.
The tribunal found that the claimant had worked 176 hours in November 2023 at an hourly rate of £34.25. On the evidence before it, his wages for that month came to £6,028. The arrangement between the parties had continued without difficulty until the missed December 2023 payment.
No payment was received, and the tribunal recorded that attempts to contact the respondent by telephone and email were unsuccessful and that no explanation was provided for the missing payment. Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had been paid less than the amount properly payable to him and that this amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £6,028 in respect of the unlawful deduction from wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to be paid £6,028 for 176 hours at £34.25 per hour for November 2023, due on 1 December 2023, and that no payment was made. | Upheld | — | £6,028 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,028
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 27 Employment Rights Act 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.