Case 8003114/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Shields v Conservatory Renovation Company Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8003114/2025
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedMr G Shields
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge A Kemp (Employment Tribunals Scotland) determined the claim under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 in the absence of a response. The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages (£1,009.02 net for two weeks at £504.01 including a lie week), to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement (£1,009.00 net for 10 days at £100.90), and to have dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice (£504.51, one week's pay).
The respondent was further found to have failed to provide a statement of initial employment particulars and a written pay statement, and was ordered to pay £2,018.04 (4 weeks x £504.51). The judgment includes a tax/NI mechanic permitting the respondent to deduct any required Income Tax and Employee NI from the notice and statement-of-particulars sums and to remit them to HMRC, with payment of the balance satisfying the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £1,009 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £1,009 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £505 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £2,018 |
Legal tests applied
1 referenceRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,541
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.