Ms A Bruce v CG Beauty (Scotland) Ltd — 2025

At the open preliminary hearing in Aberdeen via CVP on 18 September 2025, Employment Judge Campbell heard the claimant in person and the respondent through its Managing Director. The tribunal recorded that Ms A Bruce had worked for CG Beauty (Scotland) Ltd as a Senior Skin Specialist between 18 June and 6 November 2024, that she had been dismissed, and that she had received a payment in lieu of one week's notice. The live complaints were treated as pay complaints, namely unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract; the claimant had originally recognised that she could not claim unfair dismissal because of short service and later sought to raise wrongful dismissal instead. The tribunal also noted that other grievances such as bullying, grievance handling and breach of confidence were not competent tribunal claims.

The claimant's application to amend was refused so far as it sought to add wrongful dismissal. The judge held that the claim form did not explicitly plead wrongful dismissal and did not contain details that reasonably suggested a dismissal-related breach of contract, as distinct from the pay complaints. The proposed amendment would introduce a new complaint based on alleged under-allocation of clients and related matters, would require additional evidence and witnesses, and would put the respondent at a disadvantage. The tribunal also noted that any wrongful dismissal remedy would normally be limited to notice pay, that the claimant accepted she was entitled to one week's notice, and that the narrow dispute about the final payslip fell within the existing pay claims.

The respondent's strike out application failed. On the no reasonable prospect ground, the tribunal said there were disputed facts about the contract and payment and it was not for the tribunal to decide at that stage which side was more likely to succeed. The judge referred to Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust and said strike out before a full hearing is only very exceptionally appropriate where facts are in dispute. The respondent said it had identified three instances of unintended short payment and had calculated what it believed was due, and also relied on lay-off and short-term working provisions; the claimant said the final payslip was confusing and that she could not say for certain whether she had been underpaid.

On the conduct ground, the tribunal held that the claimant had pursued the case vigorously but had not crossed the threshold of scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct, so no preparation time order was made. The respondent's request for strike out and expenses was refused, and the tribunal said it would issue case management orders so the claim could proceed to a hearing in a more orderly and less onerous fashion.