Case 4111177/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Finlay v Applecrest Eco Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111177/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Finlay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing held via Cloud Video Platform on 21 March 2022, Employment Judge Smith determined the claims brought by Miss C Finlay and Mr F Callan against Applecrest Eco Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of work performed during the period 5 to 29 July 2021.
For that unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,523.61 to Miss Finlay and £1,675.08 to Mr Callan. It also found that the respondent had failed to issue each claimant with a statement of employment particulars.
In consequence of that failure, the tribunal made awards under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 assessed at two weeks' pay for each claimant, being £870.68 for Miss Finlay and £957.11 for Mr Callan. The total payable under the judgment was therefore £5,026.48.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal declared unauthorised deductions from wages for both claimants for work performed during 5 to 29 July 2021. It ordered £1,523.61 to Miss C Finlay and £1,675.08 to Mr F Callan. | Upheld | — | £3,199 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to issue a statement of employment particulars to both claimants. It made awards under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 of two weeks' pay, assessed at £870.68 for Miss C Finlay and £957.11 for Mr F Callan. | Upheld | — | £1,828 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,026
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.