Case 8000116/2025 · Employment Tribunal
M Oldham v Principal Building Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000116/2025
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Oldham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented. Employment Judge L Wiseman determined the claim without a hearing and recorded that the respondent was Principal Building.
The tribunal upheld a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. It found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,710.84 gross.
The tribunal also upheld a breach of contract claim relating to expenses in respect of notice. It found that the respondent had failed to reimburse the claimant for those expenses and awarded damages of £359.76.
A further claim for unpaid holiday entitlement was upheld. The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £806.70 gross. The total awarded was £4,877.30.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £3,710.84 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,711 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to reimburse the claimant for expenses in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £359.76. | Upheld | — | £360 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £806.70 gross. | Upheld | — | £807 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,877
- 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.