Case 4103104/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McNamee v Q&H Construction — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103104/2019
- Decision date
- 21 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McNamee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M McNamee brought a claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal extended time under section 23(4) so that the claim against the first named respondent, Q&H Construction, could be considered. Sure People was the second named respondent and was not present or represented.
The claim against Sure People was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claim against Q&H Construction under section 23(1) ERA 1996 was well-founded. Q&H Construction was ordered to pay the claimant £3,600.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim against the second named respondent, Sure People, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Time was extended under section 23(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim against the first named respondent, Q&H Construction, under section 23(1) of the ERA 1996 was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £3,600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- s.23(1) 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.