Case 4100013/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100013/2020 Mrs M Gordon v Narcissus Stirling Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100013/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mel Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100013/2020 Mrs M Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. Employment Judge Mel Sangster signed the judgment on 14 February 2020, and it was entered in the register on 17 February 2020. The hearing listed for 3 April 2020 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that Mrs M Gordon had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered Narcissus Stirling Ltd to pay damages of £2,796.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,490. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £307.87.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £2,796. | Upheld | — | £2,796 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,490. | Upheld | — | £5,490 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £307.87. | Upheld | — | £308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,594
- 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.