Case 8000434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
K Apcewicz v DMF Engineering Fabrication Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000434/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Apcewicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 20 November 2024 Employment Judge M Sutherland issued a consent judgment in K Apcewicz v DMF Engineering Fabrication Ltd. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £132 in respect of the claimant's holiday pay complaint and £1,182 in respect of his complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages.
The judgment also recorded that no itemised pay statements were provided at the time of payment of the claimant's wages in January and February 2024, and ordered £177.38 in respect of an unnotified deduction. The judgment further stated that payment of wages, including holiday pay, must be made net of tax and National Insurance, that the respondent must remit the deduction to HMRC, and that any itemised pay statement due under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 must be issued. The total award was £1,491.38.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £132 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,182 |
| Other | The judgment refers to no itemised pay statements being provided when wages were paid in January and February 2024 and awards £177.38 in respect of an 'unnotified deduction'; no more detailed legal label is given. | Upheld | — | £177 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,491
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.