Case 8002000/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Y Makarova v Intervision Gaming (UK) Limited (Trading as The Razz) — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002000/2024
- Decision date
- 4 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Y Makarova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Y Makarova was employed by Intervision Gaming (UK) Limited trading as The Razz as a Night Shift Supervisor at the Inverness site from 12 August to 30 September 2024. The case arose after she became unwell during a night shift on 28/29 September 2024, went home, and informed Ms De Vita that she could not cover the store until the day-shift handover. Ms De Vita later dismissed her with immediate effect, describing the conduct as gross misconduct.
The direct race discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had pointed to other incidents in which colleagues were not dismissed, but held that those colleagues were not valid comparators because they were more junior and the claimant was the most senior night-shift supervisor. It also found no preliminary facts from which race discrimination could be inferred; the evidence instead showed that Ms De Vita had lost confidence in how the claimant handled the staffing gap and believed she had not done enough to remedy or escalate it.
The notice claim succeeded as wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant was ill, that Mr Russell knew she had gone home, and that her conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract. At most, her response to the staffing issue was a minor breach and could be viewed as too little too late, but it was not serious enough to justify dismissal without notice.
The tribunal noted that the respondent later paid the claimant the equivalent of one week's pay, net of deductions, on 28 January 2025. That payment fully compensated her claimable loss, so although the wrongful dismissal complaint succeeded, no damages or other compensation were awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the colleagues relied on as comparators were not in materially the same position because they were more junior and the claimant was the most senior night-shift supervisor. It found no evidence that race was the reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim concerned dismissal without notice in relation to the claimant's entitlement to notice. The tribunal held that her conduct was not a repudiatory breach, so the dismissal was wrongful, but it made no damages award because the respondent later paid the equivalent of one week's net pay on 28 January 2025 and the claimant was fully compensated for her notice loss. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 23(1) Equality Act 2010
- repudiatory breach of contract
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.