Case 4107350/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R White v Fiona Clingan t/a Vanity Station — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107350/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting via CVP on 4 February 2021 before Employment Judge B Campbell, recorded no appearance or representation for the respondent. It found that Fiona Clingan t/a Vanity Station had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by not paying her for hours worked in September 2020, and ordered payment of £329.47 as compensation for the net value of those wages.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had not paid the claimant for all annual leave accrued by the termination of her employment on 21 September 2020, under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It ordered payment of £494.20 as compensation for the net value of the accrued leave days. The total awarded was £823.67.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent did not pay the claimant for hours worked in September 2020; the tribunal found this was an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £329 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent did not pay all annual leave accrued by the termination of employment on 21 September 2020; the tribunal awarded compensation for the net value of the accrued leave days under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £494 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £824
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £824
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.