Case 8001961/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Roberts Best Language School Ltd v Represented by: George Hughes, Director Lorraine Weston t/a Simply English Edinburgh — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001961/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Roberts Best Language School Ltd
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Edinburgh on 24 April 2025 before Employment Judge Campbell, the tribunal dismissed the claim against the first respondent, Best Language School Ltd. The judgment also records that the second respondent, Lorraine Weston t/a Simply English Edinburgh, failed to provide the claimant with itemised pay statements throughout his period of employment.
The claim against the second respondent in respect of unlawful deduction from wages succeeded. The tribunal ordered the second respondent to pay the claimant £1,670.50, described in the judgment as the gross value of the wages unlawfully deducted.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the first respondent, Best Language School Ltd, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the second respondent, Lorraine Weston t/a Simply English Edinburgh, succeeded; the tribunal ordered payment of £1,670.50. | Upheld | — | £1,671 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,671
- 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.