Case 4105509/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105509/2022 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on December 2022 Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss J Logan v Handmade Burger Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4105509/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105509/2022 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on December 2022 Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss J Logan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as front of house staff from 20 March 2022 until her summary dismissal on 26 July 2022. She brought claims following that dismissal. At the hearing, the respondent confirmed that the sums claimed were not disputed, and the tribunal changed the respondent name from Aspirational Brands Ltd to Handmade Burger Company Ltd because the evidence showed the claimant had been employed by Handmade Burger Company Ltd.
The tribunal held that the respondent was liable for £92.81 as damages for breach of contract, described as failure to give notice of termination of employment. It also held that the respondent was liable for £155.36 as payment in lieu of accrued holiday pay. The judgment records that the claimant accepted both sums were due and that they had not been paid.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded as damages for failure to give notice of termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £93 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as payment in lieu of accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £248
- 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.