Case 4103188/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Watt v Healthcare Environmental Services Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103188/2019
- Decision date
- 8 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Watt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. Employment Judge Frances Eccles 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 £1,728. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,016, calculated as six weeks at £336 per week.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £336. It also found a failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, ordering remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 27 December 2018; the judgment does not state a quantified amount for that award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and orders payment of £1,728. | Upheld | — | £1,728 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards £2,016, calculated as £336 x 6 weeks. | Upheld | — | £2,016 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and orders payment of £336, calculated as £336 x 1 week. | Upheld | — | £336 |
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and orders remuneration for a protected period of 90 days from 27 December 2018. The monetary amount is not quantified in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.