Case 8002942/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Craig McLachlan v Ark Fire Protection Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002942/2025
- Decision date
- 23 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Craig McLachlan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued as a consent judgment. The tribunal recorded that Mr Craig McLachlan's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded, and Ark Fire Protection Limited was ordered to pay the agreed sum of £1,185.04 gross to the claimant.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's other complaints were withdrawn and dismissed under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment was made with the consent of both parties under rule 62 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. No further reasoning or separate remedy breakdown was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages and records that it succeeds by consent. | Upheld | — | £1,185 |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were withdrawn and dismissed under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, but does not identify those complaints. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,185
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.