Case 4105367/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Panton v Represented by: Himself Bell Decorating Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105367/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Panton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing in Glasgow on 7 February 2023, Employment Judge D Hoey issued a consent judgment under rule 64 after the parties reached agreement. The respondent agreed to pay the claimant unpaid wages of £198.71 gross and unpaid bonus of £104 gross, less deductions required by law.
In the reasons, the claimant said his timesheets had been altered so that the contract name changed, and that a bonus card submitted with the timesheet showed the bonus due. He only had one timesheet from which he could calculate the £198.71 figure and had no further paperwork. He accepted the agreed wage and bonus sums in resolution of the matter. He also accepted that he had received all holiday pay due, and the claim form's suggestion otherwise was an error. He had referred to consequential losses, but the tribunal noted it was unlikely he could show that the shortfall in question caused those losses, and the parties agreed the sums would close the case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Consent judgment recorded unpaid wages of £198.71 gross and unpaid bonus of £104 gross, both payable less deductions required by law. | Settled | — | £303 |
| Working time regulations | The claimant accepted that he had received all holiday pay due; the claim form's suggestion that holiday pay was due was described as an error. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £303
- 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.