Case 4100621/2016 · Employment Tribunal
J Hendry (sitting alone) Mr Keith Armstrong v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100621/2016
- Decision date
- 17 January 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Hendry (sitting alone) Mr Keith Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted the claimant's further request for reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The request was made on the basis that holiday pay had been agreed but had not been dealt with in the earlier judgment, and that it was in the interests of justice to address it.
The Employment Judge accepted that he had been in error because he had used an earlier schedule of loss which did not include accrued holiday pay and had also failed to note a brief reference to holiday pay in the written submissions. The up-to-date schedule contained an unchallenged calculation for holiday pay, and it had been conceded at the outset of the hearing that the claimant was due nine days.
The Tribunal varied the earlier judgment to add an award of accrued but unpaid holiday pay. Using the unchallenged calculation in the schedule, the Tribunal recalculated the amount for nine days as £1,667.70.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The reconsideration judgment amended the earlier judgment to award accrued but unpaid holiday pay for nine days. Other claims may have been addressed in the earlier judgment, but this text only adjudicates the reconsideration request about holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,668 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,668
- 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.