Case 4110817/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Budd v ML Contracts Scotland — 2018
- Case reference
- 4110817/2018
- Decision date
- 14 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Jane Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Budd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a Rule 21 judgment dated 8 August 2018, Employment Judge F Jane Garvie found that ML Contracts Scotland had made unauthorised deductions from the wages of four claimants. The respondent was ordered to pay £425.60 to the first claimant, Mr James Stewart; £425.60 to the second claimant, Mr Alexander Stewart; £291.20 to the third claimant, Mr Jordan Stewart; and £291.20 to the fourth claimant, Mr Andrew Budd.
The hearing listed for 26 September 2018 was cancelled. The judgment was entered in the register on 14 August 2018 and copied to the parties. No separate split between heads of loss is recorded beyond the individual wage-deduction sums.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant, Mr James Stewart; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £425.60. | Upheld | — | £426 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant, Mr Alexander Stewart; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £425.60. | Upheld | — | £426 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Third claimant, Mr Jordan Stewart; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £291.20. | Upheld | — | £291 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Fourth claimant, Mr Andrew Budd; the tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £291.20. | Upheld | — | £291 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,434
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.