Case 4101157/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Lunan v The Wee Fish Shop Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4101157/2020
- Decision date
- 18 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Lunan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented, so Employment Judge M Whitcombe issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that Mr G Lunan had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded him £114.00 in damages.
The tribunal also found that The Wee Fish Shop Limited had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £228.00. It recorded no award for loss of Universal Credit, holding that s.24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 only applies where the financial loss is attributable to a deduction from wages, whereas the loss here was said to arise from inaccurate and late reporting of earnings. The judgment was dated 17 June 2020 and entered in the register on 18 June 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Default judgment on the available material under Rule 21. The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £114.00. | Upheld | — | £114 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £228.00. | Upheld | — | £228 |
| Other | No award was made for loss of Universal Credit. The tribunal said s.24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 only applies where the financial loss is attributable to a deduction from wages, whereas the loss here was said to arise from inaccurate and late reporting of earnings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £342
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.24(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.