Case 4107663/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107663/2019 Miss E Little v Angels Day Nursery Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107663/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107663/2019 Miss E Little
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent stated that no part of Miss E Little's claim was contested. Employment Judge Frances Eccles issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Miss Little was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. Angels Day Nursery Ltd was ordered to pay damages of £2,270.16, calculated as 8 weeks at £283.77.
The tribunal also found that Angels Day Nursery Ltd failed to pay Miss Little's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £567.54 for that entitlement. The combined sums ordered were £2,837.70, with no interest or other remedy components recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages calculated as 8 weeks x £283.77. | Upheld | — | £2,270 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and orders payment of £567.54. | Upheld | — | £568 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,838
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.