Case 8000492/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000492/2025 Employment Judge: N M Hosie Mr D Murden v G and M Properties Scotland Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000492/2025
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000492/2025 Employment Judge: N M Hosie Mr D Murden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge N M Hosie issued judgment on the available material under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found that G & M Properties Scotland Limited had unlawfully withheld wages from Mr D Murden.
The amount awarded was the gross sum of £1,284.20. The judgment records that this was calculated by reference to deductions made for disputed hours, blocking rooms and increase in rent. The respondent was also given liberty to deduct any Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions required by law before payment, provided it remitted those sums to HMRC and gave the claimant written evidence of the deductions and remittance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully withheld wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,284.20, calculated on the basis of deductions made for disputed hours, blocking rooms and increase in rent. | Upheld | — | £1,284 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,284
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,284
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.