Case 4111265/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Member W Canning Tribunal Member R Duguid Mr IIie Anghel v Mr Huseyn Karaca t/a Top Stitches — 2021
- Case reference
- 4111265/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge Tribunal
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- W Canning, R Duguid
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member W Canning Tribunal Member R Duguid Mr IIie Anghel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work for the respondent’s tailoring business on 1 February 2020 on an oral arrangement for 30 to 35 hours a week at £8.21 an hour. The tribunal found there was no written contract or written particulars at the outset, and that the respondent later claimed furlough payments for the claimant during two periods when the claimant was in Romania. The tribunal accepted some payments made by the respondent and rejected other alleged cash loans and advances where there was no vouching.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 104 ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant because he delayed returning from Romania in 2021, not because he brought proceedings or alleged infringement of a statutory right. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim failed. The tribunal found the respondent gave the appropriate notice of termination and that the claimant was not owed further notice pay under section 86 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about itemised payslips succeeded only to the extent of a declaration under sections 8 and 12 ERA 1996. The tribunal made no compensatory award because it found no relevant deductions within the 13 weeks before early conciliation that were not already covered elsewhere in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was awarded for accrued but untaken leave on termination. The tribunal allowed carry-over of leave affected by coronavirus, added pro-rated leave for the final leave year, and calculated the award at £242.30 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,605 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had not provided written particulars of employment as required by section 1 ERA 1996 and awarded the minimum two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £485 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,406
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,406
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 8 and 12 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 13(10)
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 14
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.