Case 4100136/2023 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100136/2023 Held at Aberdeen on March 20235 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss A Sauter v Bars for the North Ltd t/a MacGregor’s Bar — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100136/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100136/2023 Held at Aberdeen on March 20235 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss A Sauter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at Aberdeen on 27 March 2023 before Employment Judge J M Hendry. Miss A Sauter appeared in person and Bars for the North Ltd t/a MacGregor’s Bar was represented by Mr B MacGregor. The judgment was given orally at the hearing and the written judgment was sent to the parties on 28 March 2023.
The claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent company to pay £1,199.13, described in the judgment as accrued but unpaid wages.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for compensation as not well-founded. No further remedy was recorded beyond the award of £1,199.13 for unpaid wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded and ordered payment of accrued but unpaid wages in the sum of £1,199.13. It also dismissed the claimant's separate request for compensation as not well-founded. | Upheld | — | £1,199 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,199
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,199
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.