Case 4104618/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Karliampa v – Solicitor Rumel Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104618/2020
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Neilson Dimitra
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karliampa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy-only hearing on 6 December 2021. The respondent did not attend or lodge an ET3. The tribunal noted that by Rule 21 judgment dated 23 November 2021, the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages and redundancy had already succeeded. The claimant gave evidence remotely from Greece, and the tribunal waived full compliance with the case management order, while noting the lack of supporting documents could hinder assessment of loss.
On unfair dismissal, the claimant had worked as a hotel manager from 1 January 2017 on £9 per hour and was placed on furlough on or about 20 March 2020 before being dismissed for redundancy on 19 June 2020. Applying section 123 ERA 1996 and mitigation principles, the tribunal limited the compensatory period to 3 July 2020 to 31 October 2020, which it treated as 17 weeks. It awarded £6,120 for loss of earnings over that period, £400 for loss of statutory rights, and accepted a 10% ACAS uplift, giving £7,172 for the dismissal compensation itself. It said no basic award was due because a statutory redundancy payment was also awarded.
The tribunal then made a separate award of £1,440 under section 38(3) Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had not been provided with written particulars of employment. It recorded the overall monetary award as £8,612, with a prescribed element of £6,120 covering 3 July 2020 to 31 October 2020. It declined to make any award for the wage-slip point, saying section 38 did not apply to wage slips and the claimant had not established a statutory basis for that figure.
The remaining awards were £720 for notice pay, because the claimant received one week's notice but was entitled to three weeks; £468 for accrued holiday pay, calculated as 6.5 days at 8 hours per day at £9 per hour; £1,750.71 for unlawful deductions from wages, being the difference between what the tribunal accepted was paid and what should have been paid gross for 13 March 2020 to 19 June 2020; and £1,080 for statutory redundancy pay based on a gross weekly wage of £360. The judgment listed those sums as due, with tax and National Insurance deductions where stated, but did not state a single grand total.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal restricted loss to 3 July 2020 to 31 October 2020, being 17 weeks at £360 per week (£6,120), added £400 for loss of statutory rights and accepted a 10% ACAS uplift, producing £7,172 for the dismissal compensation before the separate written-particulars award. It said no basic award was due because a statutory redundancy payment was also payable. The judgment then recorded a monetary award of £8,612 overall, with a prescribed element of £6,120. | Upheld | — | £7,172 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant had received one week's notice but was entitled to three weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996, so she was awarded the balance at her normal weekly rate. | Upheld | — | £720 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 6.5 days accrued annual leave due on termination and calculated the award as 6.5 days at 8 hours per day at £9 per hour. It rejected the £780 figure in the schedule of loss. | Upheld | — | £468 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had received £2,419.12 in total for the relevant period but should have received £4,169.83 gross. Because no wage slips were produced and it was not known whether tax had been deducted, the tribunal treated the sums received as gross and awarded the difference, subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,751 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,631
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,612
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.122(4) ERA 1996
- ACAS Code uplift
- section 38(3) Employment Act 2002
- section 86 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 24 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 162 ERA 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week's Pay) Regulations 2020
- sections 8 and 11 ERA 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.