Case 4105566/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4105566/2023 Held on February 2024 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss Carmen Arapu v Via Express Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105566/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4105566/2023 Held on February 2024 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss Carmen Arapu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Carmen Arapu brought claims following the termination of her employment with Via Express Ltd on 16 July 2023. The respondent did not present an ET3, so the case proceeded undefended. The tribunal heard evidence from Miss Arapu, accepted her account as credible and reliable, and found that she had started work on 3 August 2016 as a chef at the respondent's restaurant in Inverurie.
The tribunal found that she was summarily dismissed without notice when told that the restaurant was closing. It held that there was clearly a redundancy situation because the respondent company had ceased to trade. On that basis, and given 6 complete years' service and weekly pay of £400, it awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,400.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that Miss Arapu worked 6 days a week, had not taken paid leave in the holiday year starting 3 August 2022, and had not been paid accrued annual leave on dismissal. Applying regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, it found she was entitled to 26.7 days' accrued leave and awarded £1,780.09 at a daily rate of £66.67.
The tribunal also found that she was entitled to 6 weeks' statutory notice because she had 6 complete years' service, and that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to give notice of termination. Damages for that breach were assessed at £2,400. Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment and awarded £800, being the minimum amount of two weeks' pay. The total award was £7,380.09.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found there was a redundancy situation because the respondent company had ceased to trade. Miss Arapu had 6 complete years' service, was 34 years old, and earned £400 per week, so the statutory redundancy payment was assessed at £2,400. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal upheld the claim under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for accrued annual leave. It found Miss Arapu had not taken paid leave in the holiday year starting 3 August 2022 and was entitled to 26.7 days' accrued leave, valued at £66.67 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,780 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached contract by dismissing Miss Arapu summarily without giving the 6 weeks' statutory notice to which she was entitled after 6 complete years' service. Damages were assessed at £2,400. | Upheld | — | £2,400 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment. It awarded the minimum amount of two weeks' pay, calculated at £800, under section 1 ERA 1996 and the section 38 Employment Act 2002 regime referred to in the reasons. | Upheld | — | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,380
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.