Case 4103500/2023 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103500/2023 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on September 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr K Docherty v Gaeltel Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103500/2023
- Decision date
- 7 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103500/2023 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on September 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr K Docherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Keith Docherty brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages against Gaeltel Ltd. The respondent did not appear and had intimated that the claim was not disputed. Employment Judge N M Hosie heard evidence from the claimant and found him to be credible and reliable.
The tribunal found that Mr Docherty was employed by the respondent as a Senior Sales Executive from 1 February 2022 until 28 April 2023. He had been given one month’s notice of termination at the beginning of April 2023 and worked that notice period.
The tribunal accepted that he was not paid his wages for that month despite his requests. It found that he was entitled to wages of £3,416 for that month, subject to the appropriate deductions for income tax and national insurance, and held that the claim under s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim brought under s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent did not defend the claim and had intimated that it was not disputed. The award was stated to be subject to appropriate deductions for income tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £3,416 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,416
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.23 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.