Case 4110814/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Stewart v ML Contracts Scotland — 2018
- Case reference
- 4110814/2018
- Decision date
- 14 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Jane Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge F Jane Garvie found that ML Contracts Scotland had made unauthorised deductions from the wages of four claimants. The first claimant was Mr James Stewart, the second claimant was Mr Alexander Stewart, the third claimant was Mr Jordan Stewart, and the fourth claimant was Mr Andrew Budd.
The tribunal ordered payment of £425.60 to Mr James Stewart, £425.60 to Mr Alexander Stewart, £291.20 to Mr Jordan Stewart, and £291.20 to Mr Andrew Budd. The listed hearing on 26 September 2018 was cancelled. The total awarded across the four claims was £1,433.60.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the first claimant Mr James Stewart's wages. | Upheld | — | £426 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the second claimant Mr Alexander Stewart's wages. | Upheld | — | £426 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the third claimant Mr Jordan Stewart's wages. | Upheld | — | £291 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the fourth claimant Mr Andrew Budd's wages. | Upheld | — | £291 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,434
- 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.