Case 8001955/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Crawford v Air Service Training (engineering) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001955/2025
- Decision date
- 19 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Crawford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnder Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 the Employment Judge issued a default judgment because no response had been presented. The respondent (in administration) was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and to have failed to pay accrued holiday entitlement, with the Redundancy Payment Service having paid part of the sums due.
The claimant was also dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, entitling her to 12 weeks' pay as damages totalling £9,967.68. The respondent was permitted to deduct any income tax and employee National Insurance Contributions required by law from the awarded sums prior to payment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages: gross £483.23 (12 x £166.13 per day = £1,993.56 less £1,510.33 paid by Redundancy Payment Service). Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £483 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement: gross £92.61 (3.08 days x £166.13 = £511.68 less £511.68 paid by Redundancy Payment Service). Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £93 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract regarding notice; 12 weeks' pay at £830.64 per week as damages. Rule 22 default judgment. | Upheld | — | £9,968 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,544
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 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.