Case 4100510/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100510/2023 Held at Aberdeen on December 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mrs Mandy Hazel Cruickshank v Represented by, Ms A Neukirch, Solicitor Campbell Connon Solicitors & David Morrison & John Fraser Hendry, The Partners thereof — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100510/2023
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100510/2023 Held at Aberdeen on December 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mrs Mandy Hazel Cruickshank
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Mandy Hazel Cruickshank commenced work as a legal secretary with Campbell Connon on 3 April 2003. The employment ended on 24 October 2022 when a Judicial Factor’s team attended the Aboyne office, required her to hand over work property and leave, and she was later told that she had been made redundant. The respondent did not lodge an ET3, so the case proceeded undefended. The tribunal found Mrs Cruickshank credible and accepted her evidence and the documentary productions.
The tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation because Campbell Connon had ceased to trade. On the facts found, Mrs Cruickshank was 57 years old and had 19 years’ service, giving her entitlement to 27 weeks’ statutory redundancy pay. Using her weekly pay of £203.08, the tribunal awarded £5,483.16. It also found that she had not been paid salary for October 2022 and awarded £620 as an unlawful deduction from wages under s.23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that she was contractually entitled to 33 days’ annual leave, had taken 28 days in the relevant holiday year, and had accrued 5 days at the date of dismissal. Using a daily rate of £40.62, it awarded £203.10 under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal further found that she had been summarily dismissed without notice. Because she had 19 years’ service, she was entitled to 12 weeks’ statutory notice, and the tribunal awarded £2,436.96 in damages for breach of contract, calculated on net pay of £203.08 per week.
The tribunal also found that Mrs Cruickshank had not been provided with a written statement of particulars of employment as required by s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Because her successful claims fell within Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded the statutory minimum amount of two weeks’ pay, being £406.16. The total award was £9,149.38. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent appeared insolvent and that no payments had been made by the Judicial Factor.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £5,483 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £620 |
| Working time regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £203 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give notice of termination of employment; calculated on net pay for 12 weeks. | Upheld | — | £2,437 |
| Other | Award for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment; treated as the statutory minimum award. | Upheld | — | £406 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,149
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Act 2002 Schedule 5 minimum amount
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.