Case 8001556/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001556/2024 Mr O MacDonald Taylor v Intesa (Leicester) Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001556/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001556/2024 Mr O MacDonald Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £2,614.54. The judgment also stated that the respondent could deduct Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions, if required by law, before payment, provided it remitted any such deductions to HMRC and gave the claimant written evidence of the deductions and remittance.
The judgment records that payment of the balance to the claimant would satisfy the judgment. No separate award for interest, injury to feelings, or other heads of loss was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No response was presented. The tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material and found an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,615 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,615
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 13 of the 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.