Case 8000300/2026 · Employment Tribunal
C Crichton v Eternal Balance LLP — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000300/2026
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Crichton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. Employment Judge P O'Donnell issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The tribunal found that Eternal Balance LLP had made an unauthorised deduction from C Crichton's wages and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £1,994.62 for the period 01 November 2025 to 30 November 2025.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages in the net sum of £460.30, calculated as one week at £460.30 per week. It further found that the respondent acted in breach of contract by not paying sums deducted from the claimant's wages for pension contributions into her pension fund, and awarded £234.00 compensation for that breach of contract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as the net sum for unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 01 November 2025 to 30 November 2025. | Upheld | — | £1,995 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards one week's net pay. | Upheld | — | £460 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded for breach of contract arising from sums deducted from wages for pension contributions not being paid into the claimant's pension fund. | Upheld | — | £234 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,689
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.