Case 4105678/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lauren McDermott v MDH Recruitment Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105678/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lauren McDermott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Lauren McDermott's claims for unlawful deductions, notice pay, and unpaid holiday pay were successful against MDH Recruitment Limited. The tribunal did not record any attendance or representation for the respondent and gave oral reasons at the conclusion of the hearing on 13 January 2023.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,507.08 in compensation. That sum was made up of £1,810.16 for unpaid wages, £244.38 for holiday pay, and £452.54 for notice pay.
No discrimination, unfair dismissal, or other heads of claim were recorded in the judgment. The decision is a short liability-and-remedy judgment and does not set out any additional factual findings or legal tests beyond the successful wage, holiday, and notice pay claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim of unlawful deductions was successful and includes £1,810.16 for unpaid wages within the total award. | Upheld | — | £1,810 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that unpaid holiday pay was successful and awards £244.38 for holiday pay within the total award. | Upheld | — | £244 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that notice pay was successful and awards £452.54 for notice pay within the total award. | Upheld | — | £453 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,507
- 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.