Case 4102895/2018 · Employment Tribunal
4102895 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102895/2018 Miss A Stupar v Prowd Enterprise Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102895/2018
- Decision date
- 23 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M. Kearns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
4102895 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102895/2018 Miss A Stupar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M. Kearns issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that Prowd Enterprise Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered it to pay £675.00.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and awarded damages of £525.00. In a separate finding, it held that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £826.00. The hearing listed for 9 May 2018 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £675.00. | Upheld | — | £675 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £525.00 in damages. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £826.00. | Upheld | — | £826 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,026
- 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.