Case 8002783/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Marr v Mulheron Scaffolding Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002783/2025
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Marr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Marr ended his employment on 15 October 2025 and claimed arrears of wages and holiday pay. The Tribunal accepted that, before considering the contractual deduction, he had unpaid wages and six untaken holiday days at £152 per day; it stated the combined amount as £1,216. It rejected the additional pension contribution element, finding that the employer contribution was 3% and that section 14(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 excluded pension payments made under the parties' arrangement from section 13.
The respondent's contract counterclaim concerned property damage arising from incidents on 26 August, in early September and in early October 2025. The Tribunal found that the claimant essentially accepted that the incidents and resulting repair costs were his fault. His employment contract permitted the respondent to deduct or withhold from his pay the cost of repairing or replacing property damaged through his neglect or fault, and the respondent's insurance excess was £2,500 for each claim.
Applying section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to deduct or withhold £1,216 under the contractual clause. It interpreted the clause as permitting recovery only by deduction or withholding from pay, rather than imposing wider liability for the repair costs, and resolved any ambiguity against the respondent as the writer of the contract. The unlawful-deduction and holiday-pay claims were therefore dismissed, while the respondent's counterclaim succeeded only to the extent of the £1,216 already withheld.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that the wages were withheld under a relevant contractual provision and therefore there was no breach of section 13 ERA 1996. The pension contribution element was also rejected under section 14(4). The reasons contain arithmetic inconsistencies: paragraph 45 contrasts 48.5 and 44.5 hours but states a 4.5-hour shortfall; paragraph 48 calculates 14 hours at £16 as £224, while paragraph 63 states £232 and uses a £304 wage subtotal. The operative judgment identifies £1,216 as the authorised deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had six untaken holiday days at £152 per day, amounting to £912, but included that sum within the £1,216 that the respondent was contractually entitled to deduct or withhold. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the respondent's employer contract counterclaim. It succeeded only to the extent of validating the £1,216 already deducted or withheld; the Tribunal held that the contractual clause did not make the claimant otherwise liable for the repair costs and did not order an additional payment. | Upheld | — | £1,216 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,216
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- sections 13(1) and 13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 14(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulations 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- ambiguous contractual terms interpreted against the writer
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.