Case 4100038/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4100038/2022 Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 30, March & April 2022 Employment Judge - A Strain Mr S Foley v Represented by:15 Ms C Mallin-Martin - Counsel ` Maritime Coastguard Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100038/2022
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4100038/2022 Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 30, March & April 2022 Employment Judge - A Strain Mr S Foley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr S Foley was unfairly dismissed by the Maritime Coastguard Agency. The judgment records that the hearing took place by CVP on 30 and 31 March and 11 April 2022 before Employment Judge A Strain, with the claimant represented by counsel and the respondent by a solicitor.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a Basic Award of £9,520 and a Compensatory Award of £5,849.91. No separate award for interest or injury to feelings is recorded in the judgment. The written reasons section states that oral reasons were provided to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing, and the judgment was dated and sent to the parties on 11 April 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £15,370 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,370
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,520
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,850
- 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.