Case 4104483/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Carlin v Panacea Fire & Security Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104483/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Carlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Michael Carlin brought a claim that Panacea Fire & Security Ltd had unlawfully withheld wages for the final two months of his employment, totalling £3,516.04. The respondent did not lodge an ET3 and did not appear at the hearing. The claimant gave evidence himself and relied on time sheets and pay slips for May and June 2022.
The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence as credible and reliable. It found that he had been employed from about 1 June 2020, paid monthly by hourly rate, and that his May 2022 pay slip showed net pay due of £2,048.56. The tribunal also accepted that his June 2022 pay slip showed net pay due of £1,467.48 and that neither sum had been paid.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that the claimant had suffered unauthorised deductions of £2,048.56 in respect of May and £1,467.48 in respect of June. It therefore declared that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages in the total sum of £3,516.04 and ordered payment of that amount to the claimant under section 24(1)(a) of the 1996 Act.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,516 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,516
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.24(1)(a) 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.