Case 4106055/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alan Rankin v Kingston Residential Investments Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106055/2022
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alan Rankin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Alan Rankin’s claims for unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract, unfair dismissal and redundancy pay all succeeded. It declared that unlawful deductions had been made from wages, but recorded that those deductions had since been paid and that no consequential losses were claimed.
The tribunal awarded £1,692.00 as damages for breach of contract. It also declared that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed, while noting that he did not seek compensation for that claim.
On redundancy, the tribunal found that the claimant had been made redundant and ordered payment of £3,140.50. The written record states that no relevant monetary award was ordered for the unfair dismissal declaration, so the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared that unlawful deductions from wages had been made, but noted that the deductions had since been paid and that no consequential losses were claimed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Damages for breach of contract were ordered in the sum of £1,692.00. | Upheld | — | £1,692 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal declared that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed, but recorded that he made no claim for compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant had been made redundant and ordered a redundancy payment of £3,140.50. | Upheld | — | £3,141 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,833
- 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.