Case 8001681/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Molloy v Craigs of Cumbernauld Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001681/2024
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Molloy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages by omitting to pay his full annual leave. It identified the statutory basis as section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with the unpaid leave referenced under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The judgment also states that the respondent was in breach of contract in not paying the wages due to the claimant and the accrued annual leave pay. The decision does not set out a separate split between the statutory and contractual aspects of the award.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £1,099.20 gross, payable net by the respondent after deduction of any income tax and national insurance contributions due on that amount.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages because the claimant’s full annual leave was not paid under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment ties the deduction finding to unpaid annual leave under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The award was not split between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal also recorded that the respondent was in breach of contract in not paying wages due and accrued annual leave pay. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,099
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.