Case 4106447/2023 · Employment Tribunal
16 A (Scot) Rule judgment template (simple) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106447/2023 Miss B Baxter v Meraki Bar and Restaurant Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106447/2023
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Hosie Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
16 A (Scot) Rule judgment template (simple) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106447/2023 Miss B Baxter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. 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 unlawfully withheld the claimant's September 2023 wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £1,095.44. It also found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the gross sum of £416.80, calculated as 40 hours at £10.42 per hour.
The respondent was permitted to deduct any Income Tax and employee National Insurance Contributions required by law before payment, provided such deductions were remitted to HMRC and written evidence was given to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment recorded that no response had been presented and found the respondent unlawfully withheld wages for September 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,095 |
| Holiday pay | Rule 21 judgment found the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, calculated on the basis of 40 hours at £10.42 per hour. | Upheld | — | £417 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,512
- 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.