Case 8002229/2025 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8002229/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on February 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Ms E Mages v Tobar Group Ltd and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002229/2025
- Decision date
- 3 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
3 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8002229/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on February 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Ms E Mages
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Mages was employed by Tobar Group Ltd as a Café/Coffee House Manager from 22 January to 14 September 2025 under a written contract that guaranteed a minimum of 45 hours' work per week at £15 per hour. The tribunal found there had been no post-contractual consensual variation reducing that entitlement. It rejected the respondent's submission that two complaint emails, and asserted dissatisfaction with the claimant's performance, justified not providing the contracted hours; the evidence fell far short of establishing any prior breach by the claimant.
On the minimum-hours issue, the tribunal found that between April and July 2025 the respondent offered and paid fewer hours than the contract required, leaving a shortfall of 151.69 hours and a net loss of £2,002.31. It held that declining to offer the claimant her contracted hours amounted to recurring unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found, separately, that the same wage loss was recoverable as damages for breach of contract, but not additionally to the wage-deduction award.
On annual leave, the tribunal found that the claimant had accrued untaken paid leave at termination and was entitled to payment for it in her final pay remittance. It held that non-payment of that leave was an unauthorised deduction from her last wage and awarded £415.80. The extracted text contains an internal inconsistency in the holiday-pay calculation, because later findings refer to 10 hours and £132 / £130, but the formal numbered judgment awards £415.80 and I have treated that as the operative figure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had a contractual entitlement to a minimum of 45 hours per week, rejected the respondent's argument that complaints about performance or alleged prior breach justified withholding those hours, and held that the shortfall from April to July 2025 amounted to an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £2,002 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant had accrued but untaken paid annual leave at termination and was entitled to payment in her final pay remittance. The holiday-pay issue also fed into the separate unauthorised-deduction finding and award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The formal numbered judgment awards £415.80 for non-payment of accrued annual leave. The extracted findings section later refers to smaller figures (£132 / £130) and 10 hours of leave, so I have treated the formal numbered award as the operative figure. | Upheld | — | £416 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held separately that failing to provide the minimum contracted hours was a breach of contract giving rise to damages, but said the claimant was entitled to be compensated in the same net sum of £2,002.31 and not additionally to that wage-deduction award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,418
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 13 and 14 of the ERA 1996
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.