Case 8000647/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Purdon v GH Falkirk Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000647/2026
- Decision date
- 21 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Purdon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented by GH Falkirk Ltd. Employment Judge D Hoey therefore determined Miss A Purdon's claims on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The Tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded the claimant the gross sum of £130.80, calculated as 13.08 hours at £10 per hour. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £332.70, calculated as 33.27 hours at £10 per hour.
The Tribunal further found a failure to comply with provisions concerning the distribution of tips and service charges, for which it awarded £692.79. It found that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions and awarded the gross sum of £196.88, representing two weeks at gross weekly pay of £98.44. The four awards total £1,353.17.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £131 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £333 |
| Other | Failure to comply with provisions concerning the distribution of tips and service charges. | Upheld | — | £693 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £197 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,353
- 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.