Case 4107574/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C D Quigley v Hr Strxpress Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 4107574/2024
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C D Quigley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge E Mannion issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment records that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and orders payment of £243.20.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide a statement of initial particulars in terms of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For that failure, the respondent was ordered to pay £800, described as 2 weeks’ pay. The judgment does not break the awards down further beyond those two sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £243 |
| Other | Award for failure to provide a statement of initial particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; ordered at 2 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,043
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.