Case 4100316/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Young v AEM Consulting (Central) Limited) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100316/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not enter a response to the claim within the required time, and the Employment Judge determined that liability could properly be decided on the available material without a hearing. The judgment therefore proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on liability only, not remedy.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, failure to pay holiday pay, and failure to pay arrears of pay all succeeded. No further reasons are set out in the judgment beyond the Rule 21 disposal and the absence of a response from the respondent.
The question of remedy was left for a later hearing to be assigned by the Tribunal, so this judgment does not record any award for compensation, basic award, holiday pay, arrears of pay, or interest.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability was determined under Rule 21 without a hearing because the respondent did not enter a response. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a failure to pay holiday pay complaint as succeeding; remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records a failure to pay arrears of pay complaint as succeeding; the judgment does not split out any monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 16 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.