Case 4104971/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Simister v Sean McGarry — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104971/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Simister
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented to the claim. On the material available, Employment Judge L Doherty found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages, and ordered payment of £906.66.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £453.33 on that claim. In addition, it found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a monetary award of £1,600.
The judgment is brief and does not set out any further findings, legal reasoning, or itemised remedy calculation beyond those three awards. The total monetary amount reflected by the judgment is £2,959.99.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; no response was presented and the tribunal decided the claim on the available material. | Upheld | — | £907 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. | Upheld | — | £453 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a monetary award. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,960
- 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.