Case 8000082/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Gordon v OGV Taproom — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000082/2025
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge A Kemp issued judgment under rule 22 because no response had been presented by the respondent. On the available material, the tribunal found that OGV Taproom had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of pay due and ordered payment of £32.47, calculated from 64.95 hours at £13 per hour less £811.88 already paid.
The tribunal also found that OGV Taproom had failed to pay Ms B Gordon's holiday entitlement, which it treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages, and ordered £751.46. That figure was calculated as 12.07% of total earnings of £6,225.88. In addition, the tribunal ordered £40 for agreed fuel expenses as a breach of contract.
The judgment permitted the respondent, when making payment, to deduct any income tax and employee National Insurance contributions required by law, provided it remitted those sums to HMRC and gave the claimant written evidence of the deductions and remittance. Subject to any such deductions, payment of the balance would satisfy the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for pay due. Calculated on the basis of 64.95 hours at £13 per hour = £844.35, less £811.88 already paid. | Upheld | — | £32 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages arising from failure to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. Calculated as 12.07% of total earnings of £6,225.88. | Upheld | — | £751 |
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay agreed fuel expenses. | Upheld | — | £40 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £824
- 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.