Case 4104608/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104608/2022 Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform on January 2023 Employment Judge - A Strain Mr C Matheson v Skye Highland Adventures Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104608/2022
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104608/2022 Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform on January 2023 Employment Judge - A Strain Mr C Matheson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Matheson, brought a single claim against Skye Highland Adventures Limited in the Employment Tribunal for Scotland. The tribunal heard the case by Cloud Video Platform on 16 January 2023, with Employment Judge A Strain sitting alone. The respondent was represented by its managing director, Mr D Brady.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim in respect of failure to pay wages was successful. The judgment does not set out further reasons in the extracted text, but it records that oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing.
As a remedy, the tribunal ordered Skye Highland Adventures Limited to pay £480 to the claimant in respect of unpaid wages. No separate award components are identified in the judgment extract, and no other claims or remedies are recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described this as a claim in respect of failure to pay wages and ordered the respondent to pay £480 for unpaid wages. | Upheld | — | £480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £480
- 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.