Case 4105153/2022 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105153/2022 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on November 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod M Smith v Aspirational Brands Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4105153/2022
- Decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105153/2022 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on November 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod M Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim on 16 September 2022 saying she had been unlawfully deprived of notice pay, accrued holiday pay, and pension contributions. The tribunal found that she had started work as a supervisor on 21 September 2021, that her contract named Aspirational Brands Ltd (Alphadean Ltd trading as Handmade Burger Co), and that her notice period after probation was one month. Her employment ended on 26 July 2022 when staff were told the restaurant was closing and that they would be dismissed without notice.
The claimant was given a letter which stated that she was not entitled to a redundancy payment but that her notice pay was £1,311.63 and her accrued holiday pay was £171.63. She agreed those figures. The tribunal recorded that she was not paid on 15 August 2022, was later told she would be paid on 31 August 2022, and still had not received any payment by the hearing date.
Mr Prince accepted that the claimant was due the sums claimed and that one month was the correct notice period, but argued that the claimant had been employed by The Handmade Burger Company rather than the respondent, and that Aspirational Brands Limited was not a trading entity and had no assets. The Employment Judge said the claim was valid and that the claimant should succeed, but was not satisfied that an award should be made against the respondent at that stage. The judge ordered the respondent to provide full details of The Handmade Burger Company so that it could be sisted as second respondent before a final judgment was issued. The reasons do not make separate findings on the pension contributions mentioned in the claim form.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the claimant was due one month's notice pay of £1,311.63, but it did not make a final award against this respondent because it considered The Handmade Burger Company needed to be sisted as second respondent first. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that accrued holiday pay of £171.63 was outstanding, but no final award was made at this stage for the same reason. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 29 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.