Case 4105612/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105612/2024 Miss A Thompson v Meraki Bar and Restaurant Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105612/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105612/2024 Miss A Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. An Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £1,187.95 gross. It also awarded £253.58 gross for accrued holiday pay and £207.00 as pay in lieu of notice.
The judgment permits the respondent to deduct any Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions required by law before paying the balance, provided the deductions are remitted to HMRC and written evidence is given to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awards the gross sum calculated from 103.3 hours at £11.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,188 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment awards accrued holiday pay calculated from 22.05 hours at £11.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £254 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment awards pay in lieu of notice calculated as 18 hours at £11.50 per hour. | Upheld | — | £207 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,649
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 13 of the 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.