Case 4106129/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106129/2022 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on January 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mrs F Jones v Thornhill Leisure (Mormond Inn) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106129/2022
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106129/2022 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on January 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mrs F Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Fay Jones brought the claim on 17 November 2022 and it proceeded undefended because the respondent did not present a response. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant by CVP on 31 January 2023 and found her evidence measured, consistent and convincing, describing her as entirely credible and reliable. It also accepted the documentary productions that accompanied her evidence.
The tribunal found that Mrs Jones had been employed by Thornhill Leisure (Mormond Inn) Ltd as bar staff from 21 August 2021 until she resigned on 11 September 2022. It accepted her evidence that two payslips dated 15 September 2022 and 15 October 2022 showed sums due from the respondent, but that payment was never made. The tribunal held that the unpaid sums, £731.53 and £748.08, totalled £1,479.61 and were unlawfully deducted from wages.
On the written particulars issue, the tribunal found that the respondent should have provided Mrs Jones with written particulars when she started work, but had instead given her a handbook rather than a written statement of her particular terms and conditions. It treated this as not a stand-alone claim, but said that because the unlawful deduction claim succeeded and written particulars had not been provided, compensation had to be awarded under the relevant Employment Act 2002 provisions. Using weekly earnings of £180.50, it awarded £361, described as the minimum amount of two weeks' pay.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent's director, John Hamilton, had told the claimant that the company would be going into administration, but a Companies House search suggested that it was not then in administration. The judgment made no separate order in relation to that point, and the final awards were £1,479.61 for unlawful deductions and £361 for the written particulars breach.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid the sums shown on payslips dated 15/09/2022 and 15/10/2022, totalling £1,479.61 (£731.53 and £748.08), and held that this sum had been unlawfully deducted from wages under s.23 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,480 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment at the start of employment. It said this was not a stand-alone claim, but awarded the minimum amount of 2 weeks' pay under the Employment Act 2002 framework, calculated from weekly earnings of £180.50. | Upheld | — | £361 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,841
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
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.