Case 8000730/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000730/2024 S Buhari v S & M Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000730/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000730/2024 S Buhari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented. An Employment Judge determined the claim on the available material. The respondent, S & M 92 Ltd, did not participate, and the judgment was entered on 30 October 2024 and copied to the parties on 1 November 2024.
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to give the claimant a pay statement in accordance with section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Because the judgment only records that finding and does not state a separate monetary award for that point, it is recorded as upheld with no separate remedy amount.
The tribunal also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of £162.55 in respect of that deduction. No further components of award, interest, or other compensation are recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the respondent failed to give the claimant a pay statement in accordance with section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The taxonomy does not include a specific written pay statement claim type, so this is recorded as other. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £162.55. | Upheld | — | £163 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £163
- 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.