Case 4103804/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Carroll v AES Glasgow Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4103804/2025
- Decision date
- 11 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Carroll
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge P O’Donnell issued judgment under rule 22 because no response had been presented to the claim. On the material available, the tribunal found that AES Glasgow Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from Mrs E Carroll’s wages, and it ordered payment of the net sum of £856.29, consisting of £428.04 for the week ending 29 August 2025 and £428.25 for the week ending 05 September 2025.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £856.50, calculated by reference to 2 weeks at £428.25 per week. A further finding was made that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement, and the tribunal ordered payment of £171.30, calculated as 2 days at £85.65 per day. The total of the sums ordered was £1,884.09.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £856.29, made up of £428.04 for the week ending 29 August 2025 and £428.25 for the week ending 05 September 2025. | Upheld | — | £856 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £856.50, calculated as 2 weeks at £428.25 per week. | Upheld | — | £857 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £171.30, calculated as 2 days at £85.65 per day. | Upheld | — | £171 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,884
- across all upheld claims
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.