Claimant v CG Beauty (Scotland) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant alleges unpaid wages including three instances respondent conceded underpayment occurred. Dispute centres on whether contractual lay-off and short-time working provisions were properly exercised and whether claimant was paid for all hours worked. Claim proceeding to full hearing.
Claimant alleges breach of contract in relation to wages owed, including notice pay. Respondent contends all sums were paid correctly. Tribunal found claim had reasonable prospects of success and should proceed to hearing rather than being struck out.
Claimant sought to amend to include wrongful dismissal claim but tribunal refused amendment. Claim not clearly included in original ET1, would require extensive new evidence, and claimant would gain no additional remedy as notice pay dispute already covered by existing wages claims.
Facts
Claimant worked as Senior Skin Specialist for spa operator from June to November 2024, dismissed during probation after approximately 5 months. She was paid notice pay but alleges underpayment of wages including three instances respondent conceded. Respondent argued it had contractual right to impose lay-off and short-time working due to lack of client demand. Claimant brought claims as litigant in person initially pursuing multiple complaints including some outside tribunal jurisdiction.
Decision
Tribunal refused claimant's application to amend to add wrongful dismissal claim as it would require extensive new evidence for no additional remedy since notice pay dispute already covered by existing wages claims. Tribunal also refused respondent's strike-out application, finding claims had reasonable prospects of success and claimant's conduct, while vigorous, did not meet high threshold for being scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. No costs order made.
Practical note
Tribunals will refuse amendment applications where the proposed new claim would be purely academic, involving disproportionate additional evidence for no meaningful increase in potential remedy, particularly where the same factual issues are already covered by existing claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000104/2025
- Decision date
- 4 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Skin Specialist
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No