Case 8000184/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds 2 claims against Assistance Dogs Scotland CIC
No response was presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
- Case reference
- 8000184/2024
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000184/2024 Employment Judge: N M Hosie Mrs C Lewtas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. On that basis, the tribunal found that Assistance Dogs Scotland CIC had unlawfully withheld wages from Mrs C Lewtas and ordered payment of £6,393 gross, calculated by reference to 996 hours at £10 per hour less £3,567 already paid as wages.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered damages equivalent to one week's pay, assessed at £150 gross. The judgment also stated that the respondent was entitled to make the usual deductions for income tax and employee national insurance contributions if required by law, provided the balance was paid to the claimant after remittance to HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully withheld wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £6,393.00, calculated on the basis of 996 hours at £10.00 per hour less £3,567.00 already paid as wages. | Upheld | — | £6,393 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of 1 week's pay in the gross sum of £150.00. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,543
- 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.