Case 4100139/2025 · Employment Tribunal
I Ashraf & S King Mr J Fitzsimmons v Cruden Homes Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100139/2025
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- I Ashraf, S King
Parties
2 namedClaimant
I Ashraf & S King Mr J Fitzsimmons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Mr Fitzsimmons' complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and successful. It awarded him a basic award of £7,788 and a compensatory award of £5,153.25, and ordered the respondent to pay £12,941.25 in total in respect of the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also dealt with a separate complaint reliant on section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That complaint was found not well founded and was dismissed. The reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the extracted text does not set out further detail on the tribunal's reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was well founded and awarded a basic award of £7,788 and a compensatory award of £5,153.25, with a total sum of £12,941.25 ordered in respect of that complaint. | Upheld | — | £12,941 |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant's complaint reliant on section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,941
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,788
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,153
- 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.