Selman Marine Design Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant was unfairly dismissed and the respondent ordered to pay £16,897 in compensation for unfair dismissal and £5,563.76 for unauthorized wage deductions.

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent made unauthorized wage deductions, therefore the claimant succeeded in both claims and was awarded compensation for unfair dismissal and recovery of deducted wages.

• •Failure to pay wages
• •Unauthorised deduction from wages

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002074/2025 Employment Judge O’Donnell Mr J Wallis Claimant Selman Marine Design Ltd Respondent JUDGMENT Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: 1. The claimant was unfairly dismissed and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £16896.50 (SIXTEEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX POUNDS, FIFTY PENCE) in compensation. 2. The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £5563.76 (FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE POUNDS, SEVENTY SIX PENCE). REASONS 1. A copy of the claim form setting out the claimant`s complaints was sent to the respondent on 26 August 2025. 2. In accordance with the terms of rule 17 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the respondent was required to enter a response within twenty eight days of the date on which a copy of the claim was sent to it but failed to do so. 3. The Employment Judge decided that on the available material a determination could properly be made without a hearing as to the liability of the respondent for the claim. In particular, in the absence of any response from the respondent, there was nothing to dispute the claimant’s assertions that he had 8002074/2025 Page 2 not been paid since February 2025 and had received no correspondence from the respondent since March 2025 causing him to resign on 1 August 2025. 4. A failure to pay an employee or offer them work is clearly a fundamental breach of contract; the provision of work and payment for it is the core of any contract of employment. The Tribunal is, therefore, satisfied that the claimant was dismissed as defined in s95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 5. The absence of any de…