Case 4112549/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112549/2019 Mr G Lawrence v HCI Viocare Clinics UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4112549/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112549/2019 Mr G Lawrence
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge Robert Gall issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that HCI Viocare Clinics UK Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr G Lawrence's wages and ordered payment of £6,112.96.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay Mr Lawrence's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £444.51. In addition, the judgment records that he incurred £72 in bank charges as a consequence of dismissal, and the respondent was ordered to pay that sum.
The decision does not set out any further legal analysis or identify any discrimination, unfair dismissal, or wrongful dismissal claim. The hearing listed for 12 February 2020 was cancelled after judgment was entered on 7 January 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £6,113 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £445 |
| Other | The judgment awards £72 for bank charges incurred as a consequence of dismissal; it does not identify a separate statutory head of claim for this amount. | Upheld | — | £72 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,629
- 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.