Case 4104877/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104877/2022 and 4104878/2022 Miss L Russell st v Wayne Mckerrell — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104877/2022
- Decision date
- 2 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104877/2022 and 4104878/2022 Miss L Russell st
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the 1st named claimant's wages and ordered payment of £529.75 gross, calculated as 40.75 hours at £13 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the 2nd named claimant's wages and ordered payment of £489.00 gross, calculated as 40.75 hours at £12 per hour. The listed hearing on 10 November 2022 was cancelled. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £1,018.75.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from the 1st named claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £529.75, calculated as 40.75 hours at £13 per hour. | Upheld | — | £530 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from the 2nd named claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £489.00, calculated as 40.75 hours at £12 per hour. | Upheld | — | £489 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,019
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.