Case 4104261/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104261/2022 Mr K Lyall v Ross Cleaning Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104261/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104261/2022 Mr K Lyall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe decided the case on the papers and recorded that the respondent, Ross Cleaning Services Ltd, had not responded before judgment was entered on 27 September 2022.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages for the period 11 February 2022 to 23 May 2022. It ordered the respondent to pay £1,175.00 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement for the period 5 January 2022 to 6 May 2022. It ordered payment of £318.55 for that claim. The judgment also stated that the respondent could deduct tax and employee National Insurance contributions, if required by law, before payment and remit those sums to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; no response was presented. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 11/2/22 to 23/5/22. | Upheld | — | £1,175 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment; no response was presented. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement for the period 5/1/22 to 6/5/22. | Upheld | — | £319 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,494
- 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.