Case 4103002/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Rivera v Prowd Enterprise Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4103002/2018
- Decision date
- 25 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Rivera
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge Ian McPherson determined the case without a response from the respondent, Prowd Enterprise Ltd, and cancelled the hearing listed for 18 May 2018.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £607.00. It also upheld the claimant’s breach of contract claim in respect of notice on dismissal and awarded damages of £173.00.
A further finding was made that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement. The tribunal ordered payment of £705.00 in respect of that claim. The judgment records separate awards on each head, giving a total monetary award of £1,485.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £607.00. | Upheld | — | £607 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £173.00 in damages. | Upheld | — | £173 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £705.00. | Upheld | — | £705 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,485
- 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.