Case 8000384/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000384/2024 Mr M Hart v Vizcareer Digital Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000384/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000384/2024 Mr M Hart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under rule 21 because no response had been presented, so Employment Judge M Kearns decided the case on the available material. The judgment records that Vizcareer Digital Limited had made no response to Mr M Hart's claim.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages. It ordered payment of £1,969.23 gross, described as the claimant's pay for the period worked in December 2023.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded damages of £2,340.60, calculated as five weeks' net pay at £468.12 per week.
Finally, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,078.05, calculated as five weeks' gross pay at £615.62 per week. The total monetary award on the face of the judgment was £7,387.88.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for the claimant's pay for the period worked in December 2023; ordered paid gross. | Upheld | — | £1,969 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages assessed at 5 weeks' net pay of £468.12 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,341 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy and found entitled to a redundancy payment assessed at 5 weeks' gross pay of £615.62 per week. | Upheld | — | £3,078 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,388
- 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.