Case 4105622/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105622/2024 Miss O Bell v Meraki Bar and Restaurant Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105622/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105622/2024 Miss O Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and 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. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £500.86, calculated as 49.2 hours at £10.18 per hour.
The judgment stated that the respondent may deduct any Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions it is required by law to deduct, provided those sums are remitted to HMRC and written evidence is provided to the claimant. Payment of the resulting balance would satisfy the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented. The award was stated as a gross sum calculated on 49.2 hours at £10.18 per hour, subject to any lawful deductions for Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions. | Upheld | — | £501 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £501
- 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.