Case 2501730/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Peter Scott v Wearmouth Construction and Plant Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501730/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Peter Scott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn reconsideration under Rule 73, the Tribunal varied the oral judgment given on 3 February 2021. It found that Peter Scott’s dismissal by Wearmouth Construction and Plant Limited was by reason of redundancy. The only claim recorded in the written judgment was unfair dismissal, and that claim was held to be well-founded.
The remedy was a compensatory award of £672 net. The Tribunal explained that it had misdirected itself by treating the award as a gross sum. It recalculated the award as two weeks’ wages at 80% of the claimant’s net weekly pay, with the result that the grand total and prescribed element were both £672, for the period 10 July 2020 to 24 July 2020. The excess over the prescribed element was £0.00, and the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance & Income Support) Regulations 1996 were said to apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and held the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. The compensatory award was stated to be a net sum of £672. | Upheld | — | £672 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £672
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £672
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.