Case 8002449/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8002449/2025 Mr E Miller v Vericall Limited - In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002449/2025
- Decision date
- 9 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sutherland Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8002449/2025 Mr E Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge Sutherland found that Vericall Limited, in creditors voluntary liquidation, had made an unauthorised deduction from Mr E Miller's wages and ordered payment of £804.12.
The judge also found that Mr Miller was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £530.72 for that claim. The judgment does not record any hearing evidence or separate findings beyond the two statutory and contractual claims identified in the order.
The total monetary award on the face of the judgment is £1,334.84, made up of the two sums ordered for wages deduction and notice pay. No additional remedy elements are set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £804.12. | Upheld | — | £804 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £530.72. | Upheld | — | £531 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,335
- across all upheld claims
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.