Case 8001033/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C James v Represented by Mr S Connolly - Solicitor Ms L Brockett trading as Elite Vet Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001033/2025
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C James
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs C James brought a claim under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place in Glasgow by CVP on 22 September 2025 before Employment Judge Sangster. The respondent, Ms L Brockett trading as Elite Vet Group, was not present and was not represented.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim succeeded. It found that £4,000 had been unlawfully deducted from her wages, contrary to section 13 ERA 1996, in respect of wages for 10 days' work undertaken between 4 and 15 November 2024 inclusive.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £4,000. It also stated that the respondent could deduct income tax and employee national insurance contributions, if required by law, provided that it remitted those sums to HMRC and gave the claimant written evidence of the deductions and payment to HMRC. Oral reasons were given at the hearing under Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant's section 23 ERA 1996 claim succeeded and that £4,000 had been unlawfully deducted from her wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996, in respect of 10 days' work between 4 and 15 November 2024 inclusive. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Rule 60 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.