Case 4103570/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Wyngard v Represented by Mr T Young, Stepfather Ross’s Garage Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 4103570/2025
- Decision date
- 11 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Wyngard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Aberdeen by Cloud Video Platform on 10 February 2026 before Employment Judge Smith, the tribunal dealt with Mr B Wyngard's holiday pay claim and a claim arising from the respondent's failure to provide a statement of employment particulars. The holiday pay claim for accrued but untaken annual leave succeeded by consent, and the respondent was ordered to pay £822.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £2,632.44 under section 38(2) Employment Act 2002. That sum represented four weeks' pay at the agreed rate of £658.11 and was made because the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a statement of employment particulars under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim for compensation in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave succeeded by consent. | Upheld | — | £822 |
| Other | Award made under section 38(2) Employment Act 2002 for the respondent's failure to provide a statement of employment particulars under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996; the amount represented four weeks' pay at the agreed rate of £658.11. | Upheld | — | £2,632 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,454
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.38(2) Employment Act 2002
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.