Case 4120665/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)10 Mr J Arbuckle v Purves Haulage Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4120665/2018
- Decision date
- 10 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mel Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone)10 Mr J Arbuckle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent haulage company from 10 July 2017 as an Operations/Contracts Manager, paid weekly at a gross rate of £568.82 and net pay of £450. He did not receive a contract of employment or written statement of terms. The tribunal found that the holiday year was not written down and that there was no written relevant agreement fixing a different leave year. It also found that the claimant resigned on 18 July 2018, saying his last day would be 27 July 2018, after having been offered alternative employment starting on 1 August 2018.
On 24 July 2018, the respondent's director discovered that the claimant had done work for APC and had used the company van to travel there. There was a heated telephone discussion and the director told the claimant to return the vehicle and finish up. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence that he had been summarily dismissed. It also found that the respondent had no written rules about outside work or about using the van outwith working hours, and that the claimant had previously used the van for personal journeys with the respondent's knowledge.
The tribunal held that the claimant had been paid up to Friday 20 July 2018 but had not been paid for 23 and 24 July 2018, so £227.58 was unlawfully deducted from his wages. It further held that he was entitled to notice pay for 25 to 27 July 2018 because his use of the vehicle to travel to APC was not gross misconduct in the circumstances found, and it awarded £270 as damages for breach of contract. The holiday pay claim failed because, applying Regulation 13(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, no further holiday pay was due. The respondent's counterclaim for damages also failed because the tribunal found no breach by the claimant and no evidence of loss. The final award was £497.58.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had worked on 23 and 24 July 2018 but was not paid for those days. It held that £227.58, representing 2 days' gross pay, was unlawfully deducted from wages on termination contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £228 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice-pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found he was entitled to pay for 25 to 27 July 2018 inclusive and awarded £270, representing 3 days' net pay. | Upheld | — | £270 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim failed. The tribunal found there was no written relevant agreement fixing a different leave year, so Regulation 13(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 applied and no further holiday pay was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's counterclaim for damages based on the APC and vehicle incident was rejected. The tribunal found the claimant had not committed gross misconduct and that no loss was proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £498
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Limited v Church [2000] IRLR 27
- Regulation 13(3) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulations 3 and 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
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.