Case 4100635/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Jones (sitting alone)10 Michael Elliot v Unrepresented D.E. Fencing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100635/2019
- Decision date
- 1 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms Amanda
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jones (sitting alone)10 Michael Elliot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMichael Elliot worked for D.E. Fencing Limited as a ground worker from June 2017 until 15 November 2018, paid at £9 per hour and £360 gross / £288 net per week. He brought a claim for unpaid week's lying time and accrued holiday pay at termination. The respondent accepted that the week's lying time had not been paid, and the tribunal found that the claimant was also entitled to accrued but untaken holiday pay, notwithstanding wording in the terms and conditions that suggested holiday pay would not be paid if he left the company.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claimant's claim for unpaid week's lying time on termination. The respondent accepted that the sum had not been paid and the tribunal found this was a breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £288 |
| Holiday pay | Claimant's claim for accrued untaken holiday pay. The tribunal found he had 2.6 days' leave outstanding at termination and was entitled to be paid for it despite the wording in the terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim alleging the claimant failed to give the required one week's notice. The tribunal found there had been a breach by the claimant, but no loss was proved and no damages were awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £438
- 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.