Case 4100233/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Onsite Property Management Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100233/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge determined the case on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,102.56.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £4,666.66, stated to represent 28 days' holiday.
Finally, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £3,333.33, described as one month's notice pay. The hearing listed for 30 March 2022 was cancelled, and the judgment was entered in the register on 10 March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal found the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £4,102.56. | Upheld | — | £4,103 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment: the tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £4,666.66, described as 28 days' holiday. | Upheld | — | £4,667 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £3,333.33, described as one month's notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,333 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,103
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.