Case 4100135/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100135/2024 & 8000105/2024 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on April 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod C Stobie v Sandemans — 2024
- Case reference
- 4100135/2024
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100135/2024 & 8000105/2024 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on April 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod C Stobie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard that the claimant started work as a solicitor on 24 October 2023 and that her employment ended by telephone on 21 December 2023. It excluded late-produced documents tendered by the claimant shortly before the hearing, then heard evidence from both parties. The tribunal found the relationship had broken down and that there was confusion about the dismissal, the annual leave position, and the expenses process.
On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not taken annual leave during employment. It rejected the respondent's argument that payment to the end of December 2023 meant the claimant had been paid for annual leave, finding that there had been no clear notice or agreement that the period after 21 December 2023 was to count as annual leave. Applying regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to a payment in lieu of untaken leave and calculated this by reference to 4.6 days at £103.11 per day, producing an award of £474.31.
On expenses and outlays, the tribunal found that the respondent accepted some sums were due, identifying £174.60 in its letter of 10 January 2024. It also noted that the respondent sought to deduct the balance of the practising certificate fee, said to be £424.48, from any sums owed to the claimant. The tribunal found no evidence of any contractual right or written authority allowing that set-off, held that the respondent was in breach of contract by not paying the admitted expenses, and ordered payment of £174.60.
The separate claim about a written statement of terms and conditions failed. Although the claimant said she had never seen the document, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had prepared a written statement and left it in the office. It concluded that this did not amount to a failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment, and dismissed that claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | Claim for payment in lieu of untaken annual leave on termination. The tribunal found reg 14 of the Working Time Regulations applied, rejected the respondent's case that the post-dismissal period had been treated as annual leave, and awarded 4.6 days at £103.11 per day. | Upheld | — | £474 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for unpaid travel expenses and outlays. The respondent accepted £174.60 was due, but sought to set it off against the balance of the practising certificate fee; the tribunal found there was no clear written authority for that deduction and ordered payment of £174.60. | Upheld | — | £175 |
| Other | Claim based on the alleged failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. The tribunal found the respondent had prepared a written statement and left it on the claimant's desk, so this did not amount to a failure to provide one. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £649
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations
- Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations
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.