Case 4103701/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ross v Professional Canine and Security Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103701/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D O'Dempsey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal granted Mr D Ross's claim for a declaration that there had been an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £1,366.70 against Professional Canine & Security Limited. The judgment records that the amount had already been paid before the hearing.
Because the sum had already been paid, the tribunal did not order it to be paid to the claimant, referring to section 25(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also notes that the claim under section 25(2) was adjourned with directions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the tribunal granted a declaration that there had been an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £1,366.70. No payment order was made because that sum had already been paid before the hearing, and the tribunal referred to section 25(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim under section 25(2) was adjourned with directions. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 25(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 25(2) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.