Case 4101944/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v ACCA4 Ltd (previously Sovereign Grooming Glasgow Ltd) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101944/2023
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued because no response had been presented to the claim. The Employment Judge decided the case on the available material and granted judgment for the claimant on all matters addressed in the decision.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £3,183 gross. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,061 gross as damages for that claim.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £170 gross, described in the judgment as 2 days' holiday at a rate of £85 per day. The total of the sums ordered is £4,414 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay £3,183 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,183 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and was awarded £1,061 gross in damages. | Upheld | — | £1,061 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; the award was £170 gross, described as 2 days' holiday at £85 per day. | Upheld | — | £170 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,414
- 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.