Case 4112395/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sharon Stott v ’s husband)15 Ms A Barbosa (trading as — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112395/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sharon Stott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely on 8 March 2022 before Employment Judge M Whitcombe, heard Mrs Sharon Stott's claims against Ms A Barbosa trading as Fiesta Fish and Chicken Bar. By consent, the respondent's name was amended to the form used in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim failed. No separate remedy was awarded under that claim.
The tribunal also found that, on termination of employment, the claimant was entitled to a payment for accrued but untaken paid annual leave. It held that the difference between the amount due and the amount paid by the respondent was £150.76, and awarded that sum to the claimant as an unlawful deduction from wages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to payment in respect of accrued but untaken paid annual leave on termination, and that the difference between that entitlement and what had been paid was £150.76. | Upheld | — | £151 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £151
- 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.