Case 4102863/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102863/2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Dean Lillie v Kings Arms Hotel (Sandwich) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102863/2019
- Decision date
- 6 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102863/2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Dean Lillie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim on 8 March 2019 complaining that he had been unlawfully deprived of wages during a short period of employment with the respondent. The respondent’s ET3 response admitted that some sums were due, but not all that the claimant claimed.
The hearing took place on 24 May 2019. The claimant attended in person and gave evidence on oath. The respondent did not attend or send a representative, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
On the evidence before it, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to £135.99 for wages underpaid in the weeks of 14 and 21 November 2018, £390 for 4.9 days of annual leave accrued but untaken at the date of resignation, and £264.86 for wages underpaid in the final week of employment. The tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay £790.85 in respect of unlawful deductions from wages.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated the case as a claim for unlawful deductions from wages. In reasons, it found the claimant was entitled to £135.99 for underpaid wages for the weeks of 14 and 21 November 2018, £390 for 4.9 days of annual leave accrued but untaken at resignation, and £264.86 for underpaid wages for the final week of employment. | Upheld | — | £791 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £791
- 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.