Case 4103010/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103010/20225 Held at Aberdeen on August 2022 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss M Fraser v The Estate of the Late Colin Scott Reekie — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103010/2022
- Decision date
- 24 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103010/20225 Held at Aberdeen on August 2022 Employment Judge J M Hendry Miss M Fraser
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not appear. The tribunal first held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to lodge her claims for unpaid wages, holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice in time, and that they were brought within such period as the tribunal considered reasonable, so it had jurisdiction to hear them.
On the merits, the tribunal found the claimant entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,990. It also found that she was entitled to wages for the week commencing 18 October 2021 and awarded £276.21.
The tribunal further awarded £709.10 for accrued wages and holiday pay to 25 October 2021, and held that the claimant had been given no notice of termination of employment. It therefore ordered payment of £3,800, being 11 weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The total awarded was £8,775.31.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,990 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £276 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded a single lump sum for wages and accrued holiday pay to 25 October 2021 and did not split the amount between those heads. | Upheld | — | £709 |
| Breach of contract | Pay in lieu of notice for 11 weeks. | Upheld | — | £3,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,775
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable test
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.