Case 4103083/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Godoy Chua v Cairngorm Ski Service Limited / Duke & Gordonhotel — 2026
- Case reference
- 4103083/2025
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Godoy Chua
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge A Kemp issued judgment on the available material under Rule 22. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages by not paying the full wages due, and ordered payment of £89.49 gross, calculated on 178.98 hours at £0.50 per hour.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and had made an unauthorised deduction from wages accordingly. It ordered payment of £1,496.13 gross, calculated for 2024 on the basis of 9.65 hours x 7.5 days x £13.50 per hour (£977.06) and for 2025 on the basis of 7.69 hours x 5 days x £13.50 per hour (£519.07). The judgment allowed the respondent to deduct income tax and employee National Insurance if required by law, provided it remitted those sums to HMRC and gave written evidence of the deductions and remittance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment found an unauthorised deduction from wages for unpaid wages due, calculated on 178.98 hours at £0.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £89 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment found failure to pay holiday entitlement and treated it as an unauthorised deduction from wages; the award was calculated separately for 2024 and 2025. | Upheld | — | £1,496 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,586
- 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.