Case 8000787/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Anderson v Stuarts Coaches Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000787/2025
- Decision date
- 22 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Anderson presented complaints seeking notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments or hardship. The tribunal held that he failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was owed notice pay, holiday pay or arrears of pay beyond the amount the respondent admitted was outstanding.
The respondent admitted that £747.54 was owed in respect of one or more of those complaints and had not yet been paid. The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay £747.54 to the claimant, but found that the claimant had not proved any greater sum.
The tribunal treated the reference to “other payments” and/or “hardship” as a reference to section 24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant had not proved any additional financial loss by reason of the deduction from his wages, so no further award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claimant had not proved he was owed notice pay, holiday pay or arrears of pay beyond the sum the respondent admitted remained unpaid. It did not specify whether the £747.54 related to notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay, or more than one of those heads. | Upheld | — | £748 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £748
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.24(2) ERA 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.