Case 8000636/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hayward v O’connells Bar + Diner Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000636/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hayward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 24 September 2024, Employment Judge McFatridge heard the case by CVP. The judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing. The respondent, O’connells Bar + Diner Ltd, was represented by Ms Hirst and the claimant, Kaiya Hayward, appeared in person.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims because they were time barred. On that basis, the claims were dismissed. The judgment does not set out any further substantive findings on the underlying factual issues, and it does not record any award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the individual claim labels, but the gov.uk listing categories include unlawful deduction from wages and working time. The tribunal held that the claimant's claims were time barred and dismissed them for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out the individual claim labels, but the gov.uk listing categories include unlawful deduction from wages and working time. The tribunal held that the claimant's claims were time barred and dismissed them for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.