Case 4105870/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Tribunal in Case No: 4105870/2023 Heard on the Cloud Based Video Platform on the th of January 2024 a 2.50 pm Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr David Oag v Chedstow (Falkirk) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105870/2023
- Decision date
- 11 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Tribunal in Case No: 4105870/2023 Heard on the Cloud Based Video Platform on the th of January 2024 a 2.50 pm Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr David Oag
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting before Employment Judge J G d'Inverno, found that Chedstow (Falkirk) Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr David Oag's wages within the meaning of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The deduction related to payment due for work carried out at the contractual rate in the month to 31 August 2023.
The judgment records that the deduction amounted to £1,040. The tribunal therefore upheld the wages claim and ordered the respondent to pay Mr Oag the net sum of £1,040, being the amount equivalent to the unauthorised deduction.
The tribunal delivered an oral judgment with oral reasons at the end of the hearing, and no written note of reasons was attached to the judgment. No other claims or remedy components are recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by not paying the claimant the contractual rate for work carried out in the month to 31 August 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,040 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,040
- 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.