Case 4102329/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Brunel v Creative Oceanic — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102329/2018
- Decision date
- 2 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Brunel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which no response had been presented, so Employment Judge Laura Doherty decided the claim on the available material. The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages, and the tribunal ordered payment of £288.75.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered the respondent to pay £105.00 in respect of that claim.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that Miss A Brunel had been unfairly dismissed and ordered a monetary award of £1,804.69. The judgment does not break that award down into basic and compensatory elements.
The total sum awarded by the judgment is £2,198.44.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £288.75. | Upheld | — | £289 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £105.00. | Upheld | — | £105 |
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a monetary award of £1,804.69. | Upheld | — | £1,805 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,198
- 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.