Case 4117263/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Hayter Enterprises Ltd (Subway) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4117263/2018
- Decision date
- 5 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Cowen
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, for the reasons given orally at the hearing on 1 July 2019, the claimant's application succeeded. It ordered the respondent to pay four sums arising from the employment relationship: £313.50 for unlawful deductions relating to 57 hours worked, £77 for one week's unpaid notice pay based on 14 hours per week, and £21.40 for accrued but unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal also awarded £154 for failure to provide payslips contrary to s.8 ERA 1996, expressed as compensation equal to two weeks' pay. No separate liability reasoning is set out in the extracted text beyond the oral reasons referred to in the judgment notice, and the judgment does not identify any reduction or offset against the sums awarded.
The total of the awards set out in the judgment is £565.90.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions of 57 hours in relation to work carried out. | Upheld | — | £314 |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay based on 14 hours per week for one week. | Upheld | — | £77 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but unpaid wages in relation to accrued holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £21 |
| Other | Failure to provide payslips contrary to s.8 ERA 1996; compensation equal to two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £154 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £566
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.8 ERA 1996
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.