Case 4100558/2017 · Employment Tribunal
L Doherty Mr Ian Aitchison v Stewart Inglis Industrial Painting Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100558/2017
- Decision date
- 2 May 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Doherty Mr Ian Aitchison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which the tribunal determined the claim on the papers. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,478.00.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,973.96. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,486.80.
Separately, the respondent was ordered to pay the tribunal fee of £160 by way of expenses under rule 75(1)(b). The hearing listed for 14 June 2017 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £2,478.00. | Upheld | — | £2,478 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,973.96. | Upheld | — | £2,974 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and awarded £1,486.80. | Upheld | — | £1,487 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,099
- 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.