Case 4102998/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Charles Harrigan v Datalytics Technology (in liquidation) — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102998/2018
- Decision date
- 25 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Charles Harrigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £27,083.35, representing five months' gross salary at £5,416.67 per month from October 2017 to February 2018. The sum was ordered to be paid gross, with the claimant responsible for any income tax and employee National Insurance due to HMRC.
The tribunal did not finally determine the further claimed sums for HMRC deductions from July to September 2017 or for pension contributions from 1 October 2017. Those issues were identified as raising possible jurisdiction questions, including time-bar, and were reserved for a preliminary hearing or further consideration after additional information from the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment upheld the unauthorised deduction from wages claim for five months' gross salary from October 2017 to February 2018. Further claimed sums for HMRC deductions and pension contributions were reserved for preliminary hearing or further consideration and were not finally adjudicated in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £27,083 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,083
- 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.