Case 4100281/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100281/2019 Mr C A Webster v Kaiam Europe Limited (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100281/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100281/2019 Mr C A Webster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented to the claim, so Employment Judge Robert Gall issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr C A Webster, was entitled to a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The award was stated as 90 days' pay. The extracted judgment does not set out a monetary calculation or any split between heads of loss, so no cash total can be extracted from the text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Rule 21 default judgment. The judgment states that the claimant is entitled to a protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, quantified as 90 days' pay, but no cash sum is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.