Case 8000568/2024 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 8000568/2024 Miss Vaida Rubyte v Houseofarran Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000568/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 8000568/2024 Miss Vaida Rubyte
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the respondent unlawfully withheld wages from Miss Vaida Rubyte in the sum of £1,407.52 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum to her.
The tribunal also found that Miss Rubyte was unfairly dismissed by Houseofarran Ltd. It ordered the respondent to pay her £4,400 in respect of that claim. The judgment does not break that sum down into separate components or record any additional remedy findings.
The judgment was dated 30 July 2024 and entered in the register on 31 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent unlawfully withheld wages in the sum of £1,407.52 and ordered payment of that amount. | Upheld | — | £1,408 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered payment of £4,400 in respect thereof. | Upheld | — | £4,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,808
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.