Case 4105631/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Bain v Duffy’s JG Limited and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105631/2022
- Decision date
- 11 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J McCluskey
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms K Bain
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with holiday pay claims against three respondents. It held that the claim against the first respondent, Duffy’s JG Limited, was well-founded and ordered payment of £52.66, subject to deduction of income tax and national insurance. The amount was calculated as 0.5 weeks at £261 gross per week, totalling £130.50, less £77.84 already paid to the claimant.
The holiday pay claims against the second respondent, Mr D Duffy, and the third respondent, Ms C Hunter, were each found not well-founded and dismissed. The reasons section records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the supplied text contains only the dispositive findings and the arithmetic underlying the award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim against the first respondent (Duffy’s JG Limited); the tribunal ordered payment of £52.66 subject to deduction of income tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £53 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim against the second respondent (Mr D Duffy) was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim against the third respondent (Ms C Hunter) was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £53
- 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.