Case 4106053/2022 · Employment Tribunal
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4106053/2022 Heard at Edinburgh on the th of January 2023. Employment Judge J G d’lnverno Miss S Robertson v Rujia Marketing Consultant Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106053/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4106053/2022 Heard at Edinburgh on the th of January 2023. Employment Judge J G d’lnverno Miss S Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Rujia Marketing Consultant Ltd from 25 February 2022 to 29 August 2022. The respondent did not appear at the final hearing, and after noting an email saying the company was in the process of going into liquidation, the Employment Judge proceeded in the respondent's absence and accepted the claimant's unchallenged evidence. The tribunal found that the claimant had worked regular hours notwithstanding a zero-hours contract, and that she was due wages at £10 per hour for the relevant periods.
For the period 1 to 21 August 2022, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to net wages of £1,039.31 and that the respondent later paid only part of that sum, leaving £519.65 unpaid. That retention was an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996, and the tribunal ordered payment of £519.65 net. For the notice period worked from 22 to 29 August 2022, the tribunal found that the claimant worked 72 hours and was owed £720 gross. The respondent had not paid those wages, so the tribunal again found an unauthorised deduction and ordered payment of £720 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance deductions.
The tribunal also found that, at termination, the claimant had accrued 2.86 weeks of paid annual leave, had taken 2 weeks, and therefore had 0.86 weeks outstanding. It awarded £344 gross for that untaken leave. A separate breach of contract claim for £150, said to be the loss of a holiday deposit after cancellation of a prebooked holiday, was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that that loss was proved to have been reasonably foreseeable to the respondent when it failed to pay the wages due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction for wages due for 1 to 21 August 2022. The judgment records that the respondent later made a partial retrospective payment and that the remaining balance conceded and ordered was £519.65 net, under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £520 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction for the worked notice period from 22 to 29 August 2022. The tribunal found 72 hours were worked at £10 per hour, giving £720 gross, payable subject to tax and National Insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £720 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken paid annual leave as at the effective date of termination. The tribunal found 0.86 weeks outstanding, equal to 34 hours, and awarded £344 gross. | Upheld | — | £344 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for £150 damages arising from cancellation of a prebooked holiday and loss of deposit. Dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the loss was reasonably foreseeable to the respondent at the time of the breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,584
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- reasonable foreseeability
- balance of probabilities
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.