Case 4100162/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Luty v M Miller — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100162/2025
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Luty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found that the respondent had unlawfully withheld wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £222, calculated as 18.5 hours at £12 per hour.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment also provided that the respondent could deduct Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions, if required by law, before payment, and that payment of the balance would satisfy the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the award as a gross sum of £222 for 18.5 hours at £12 per hour and states that the respondent unlawfully withheld wages. | Upheld | — | £222 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £222
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.