Case 4111431/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111431/2021 Miss G Smith v Pitter Patter Childcare Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4111431/2021
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111431/2021 Miss G Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge Frances Eccles determined the case on the available material on 3 December 2021, and the hearing listed for 8 December 2021 was cancelled.
The tribunal upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay £1,439.47, calculated as 127.5 hours at £11.29 per hour. It also upheld the breach of contract claim in respect of notice and awarded £1,151.58, calculated as 102 hours at £11.29 per hour.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £671.79, calculated as 7 days' pay at £95.97 per day. The total award was £3,262.84.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay £1,439.47, calculated as 127.5 hours at £11.29 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,439 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £1,151.58, calculated as 102 hours at £11.29 per hour. | Upheld | — | £1,152 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £671.79, calculated as 7 days' pay at £95.97 per day. | Upheld | — | £672 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,263
- 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.