Case 4100168/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Nessie Pizza Direct — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100168/2022
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response. The Employment Judge therefore issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material and decided that liability and remedy could properly be determined without a hearing. The tribunal accepted the claim on all three complaints and cancelled the hearing listed for 25 March 2022.
On notice pay, the tribunal held that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £238.04 net, described as one week’s pay. On holiday pay, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £734.73 gross, calculated as 112 hours at £6.56 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions and awarded £985.92 gross, calculated as 4 weeks’ pay at £246.48. It recorded that the claim was not one to which the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay: the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded one week's pay as damages. | Upheld | — | £238 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded 112 hours' pay. | Upheld | — | £735 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions; the tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £986 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,959
- 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.