Case 4113105/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Miss O Nowicki v Skin Scotland Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4113105/2018
- Decision date
- 27 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Miss O Nowicki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge David Hoey sitting alone in Glasgow on 21 March 2019. The central question was which respondent employed Miss O Nowicki when her employment ended. The claimant had applied for a beauty therapist role advertised as being with Medica Skin Clinic, was interviewed by the third respondent, accepted an oral offer after a trial shift on 7 March 2018, and was told her hours, pay arrangement, and bank details would be handled by the third respondent. She worked under the third respondent's direction day to day and was paid under the names Medica Skin and Diva Beauty. No written contract or written statement was produced, and the claimant said she was never told that the first respondent was her employer.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the third respondent was the claimant's employer at the date her employment ended and was liable for any sums found due. The claims against the first respondent, second respondent and fourth respondent were dismissed. No quantified monetary award was made in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- balance of probabilities
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.