Case 2402093/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Burns v Scaffold North West Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402093/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Burns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21. The tribunal found that Miss S Burns had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and therefore was entitled to a redundancy payment. The judgment records that the amount was £320.00, calculated by reference to 2 years' continuous employment and weekly pay of £160.00 when aged over 41 years.
The tribunal also found that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice. Damages for that claim were assessed at £120.00 net. No further factual findings or disputed issues are set out in the extracted text beyond the two monetary awards.
The judgment does not record any discrimination, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, or other statutory claims. It also does not allocate any separate interest figure in the judgment itself, although an attached notice explains the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 and the date from which interest would start to accrue if sums remained unpaid.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £320.00, calculated by reference to 2 years' continuous employment and weekly pay of £160.00 when aged over 41 years. | Upheld | — | £320 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £120.00 net. | Upheld | — | £120 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £440
- 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.