Case 4100300/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100300/2023 Ms R Blackhurst v The Montford House — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100300/2023
- Decision date
- 29 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Claire McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100300/2023 Ms R Blackhurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was determined under Rule 21 because no response had been presented. On the available material, the Employment Judge found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £716.04, calculated as 78 hours at £9.18 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £137.70, calculated as 15 hours at £9.18 per hour. The judgment stated that the respondent could deduct any Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions required by law before payment, provided the relevant sums were remitted to HMRC and written evidence was given to the claimant.
The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was dated 27 March 2023 and entered in the register on 29 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages; amount stated as 78 hours x £9.18 per hour. | Upheld | — | £716 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday entitlement; amount stated as 15 hours x £9.18 per hour. | Upheld | — | £138 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant had withdrawn the claim; dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £854
- 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.