Case 4100695/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Geddes v Stream Marine Training Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100695/2017
- Decision date
- 19 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Geddes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment. No response had been presented, so Employment Judge Frances Eccles determined the claim on the available material. The claimant, Mr A Geddes, succeeded on the notice element of his dismissal claim: the tribunal held that he had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,340.70.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,279.19. A further breach of contract finding was made in relation to the claimant's bonus, with an order that the respondent pay £2,657. The tribunal additionally ordered reimbursement of the £160 tribunal fee by way of expenses under rule 75(1)(b).
The hearing listed for 7 July 2017 was cancelled. No discrimination claim, unfair dismissal finding, or statutory compensation assessment is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,340.70. | Upheld | — | £1,341 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,279.19. | Upheld | — | £2,279 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract in relation to the claimant's bonus and ordered payment of £2,657. | Upheld | — | £2,657 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,437
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 75(1)(b)
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.