Case 8000970/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000970/2024 Mr D Scott v Chef Jamie Scott Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000970/2024
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000970/2024 Mr D Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented, so the tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment on the available material. It found that the respondent had unlawfully withheld wages and ordered payment of £347.18. It also found that holiday entitlement had not been paid and awarded £477.05, calculated by reference to 41.7 hours at £11.44 per hour.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to comply with the duty to provide a statement of initial employment particulars and a written pay statement. It awarded £903.76 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, being two weeks' pay calculated at 39.5 hours x £11.44 x 2, and recorded that it had no information suggesting it would be just and equitable to award the higher amount available under that provision.
The PID claim was dismissed. The tribunal said there was no averment that the claimant suffered any detriment as a result of making disclosures and that the ET1 box for that claim appeared to have been ticked in error. The hearing listed for 16 October 2024 was cancelled, and the respondent was permitted to make lawful deductions for tax and National Insurance before paying the balance to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £347 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £477 |
| Other | Award made under s38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of initial employment particulars and written pay statement. The tribunal said there was nothing before it to justify awarding the higher amount available under s38. | Upheld | — | £904 |
| Whistleblowing | The PID claim was dismissed because there was no averment that the claimant suffered a detriment as a result of making disclosures, and the tribunal said the ET1 box appeared to have been ticked in error. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,728
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.