Case 4123628/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Grant v Kirsty MacArthur & others — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123628/2018
- Decision date
- 11 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a final hearing at which the tribunal did not decide the merits of the wage or holiday claims. The claimant said she had worked under the direction of the individual named in the claim form, but that there had never been clarity about who employed her. She told the tribunal she had not been given a written statement of particulars or wage slips and believed her employer was either MacArthur Leisure Limited or MacArthur Wellness Clinic Limited.
The tribunal considered it was in the interests of justice to add MacArthur Leisure Limited and MacArthur Wellness Clinic Limited as respondents under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It ordered the claim form and note to be served on those companies and gave them 28 days to lodge a response if so advised, so that they could confirm whether either entity had employed the claimant and respond to the claims.
The judgment recorded six heads of claim advanced by the claimant: unpaid wages for 14.5 hours worked from 2 to 5 October 2018, 45.5 hours' holiday pay for leave taken between 13 March 2018 and 8 October 2018, outstanding accrued holiday at termination, reimbursement of £73 for a training course, reimbursement of £750 for another course, and financial losses said to arise under s.24(2) ERA 1996 from any unlawful deduction of wages. No liability, dismissal, or monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimed payment for 14.5 hours worked from 2 to 5 October 2018 and said financial losses had also arisen from non-payment under s.24(2) ERA 1996. The judgment did not determine liability; it ordered the claim to be served on two added respondent companies. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claimed 45.5 hours' holiday pay in respect of holidays taken between 13 March 2018 and 8 October 2018. The judgment did not determine liability. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claimed payment for outstanding accrued holiday due at termination of employment, with the amount to be calculated and sent to the Tribunal and the other respondents. The judgment did not determine liability. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claimed reimbursement of £73 for a training course described as Canva/social media promotional material, said to have been required for the employer. The judgment did not determine liability. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claimed reimbursement of £750 for a private course said to have been required to secure a qualification for work. The judgment did not determine liability. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.