Case 4103740/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shaun Canney v Represented by: Mr T Merck Solicitor Ms Jill Harley trading as Jazz Hairdressers — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103740/2020
- Decision date
- 26 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shaun Canney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 19 July 2021, Employment Judge A Kemp recorded that Mr Shaun Canney's claim for unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, and that his claim that the respondent had not provided a statement of particulars of employment under section 1 of the 1996 Act and section 11 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 also succeeded. The tribunal awarded £131 for the unlawful deductions claim and £600 for the written particulars claim, making a total award of £731.
The extracted judgment does not set out the underlying factual dispute in detail. It records that the remaining claims were withdrawn during the final hearing and were dismissed on withdrawal under Rule 52. No additional remedy components were identified in the judgment beyond the two summed awards making up the total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal awarded £131. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Other | Claim that the respondent did not provide a statement of particulars of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 11 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The tribunal awarded £600. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £731
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.11 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 52
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.