Case 4107032/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107032/2023, 4107033/2023 and 4107034/2023 Ms K Baxter v Mr Keir Whyte Third Claimant - as above Ventureways Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107032/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey Employment
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107032/2023, 4107033/2023 and 4107034/2023 Ms K Baxter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented and the respondent was not present or represented. The tribunal declared that Ventureways Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimants' wages.
The judgment recorded separate awards for each claimant: Katie Baxter £1,417.50, Keir Whyte £1,102.50, and Aiza Mir £1,732.50. No further reasoning, legal analysis, or separate remedy breakdown was provided in the extracted text.
The total of the awards is £4,252.50. The judgment does not identify any additional claims, legal tests, or other remedies beyond the unpaid wages awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal declared an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment to Katie Baxter of £1,417.50. | Upheld | — | £1,418 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal declared an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment to Keir Whyte of £1,102.50. | Upheld | — | £1,103 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal declared an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment to Aiza Mir of £1,732.50. | Upheld | — | £1,733 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,253
- 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.