Case 1602198/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Scott v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602198/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Scott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal allowed Mr Scott's claims for redundancy pay, unpaid wages, holiday pay and notice pay. It found on the evidence before it that Mr Scott was an employee of JWS Print Limited within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The amounts payable as a result of the decision were agreed between the parties. The agreed sums were £3,930 for redundancy, £2,096 for unpaid wages, £327.50 for holiday pay and £2,620 for notice pay, giving a total of £8,973.50.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy pay claim was made out and allowed, with the amount agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | £3,930 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unpaid wages claim was made out and allowed, with the amount agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | £2,096 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was made out and allowed, with the amount agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | £328 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the notice pay claim was made out and allowed, with the amount agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | £2,620 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,974
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 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.