Case 8000479/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Davidson v Ness Drinks Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000479/2026
- Decision date
- 13 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Aberdeen via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Davidson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNess Drinks Limited did not appear at the remedy hearing on 24 July 2026 despite having been sent notice. The tribunal accepted Mr Ryan Davidson's evidence as credible and reliable. He worked as a production assistant from 17 March 2025 until his dismissal on 6 December 2025, earning £2,400 gross per month. His unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he lacked two years' continuous service.
The tribunal upheld the unauthorised deductions from wages claim and awarded £2,361.16 gross. This comprised £1,475 outstanding for November 2025 after a payment of £925, £553.85 for a week's work in December 2025 and £332.31 for three days' outstanding annual leave. Holiday pay was included within the wages claim. The respondent could deduct tax properly due on this award only if it paid the deduction to HMRC and provided written evidence to the claimant at the same time.
The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract by dismissing him without notice. It awarded £213.60 for two days' lost pay at the net daily rate of £106.80. The claimant began new employment on 8 December 2025. The tribunal treated the notice damages as not taxable.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements under section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant received payslips up to August 2025 but none thereafter. The tribunal awarded £221.54 for this claim and treated it as not taxable. The three stated awards add up to £2,796.30 before any permitted tax deduction from the wages award; the judgment does not expressly state a combined total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant lacked two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross award comprising £1,475 for November 2025 wages, £553.85 for December 2025 wages and £332.31 for three days' outstanding holiday pay. Holiday pay was adjudicated as part of this claim. Any tax deducted must be paid to HMRC, with written evidence provided to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £2,361 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to give notice. Damages covered two days at £106.80 net per day and were treated by the tribunal as not taxable. | Upheld | — | £214 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements after August 2025, contrary to section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment describes £221.54 as two weeks' gross pay, although it elsewhere states gross weekly pay of £553.85. The stated award is retained; the tribunal treated it as not taxable. | Upheld | — | £222 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,796
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.13 and 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reg.14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Order 1994
- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 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.