Case 4100965/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100965/2022 Mr S Kane v Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100965/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100965/2022 Mr S Kane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. An Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that Weir & McQuiston (Scotland) Limited (In Administration) had failed to pay Mr S Kane's holiday entitlement. The respondent was ordered to pay £794.77, stated to represent 3.69 days' leave.
All other heads of claim were recorded as having been withdrawn by the claimant and were dismissed under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment does not identify those other heads of claim or attach any separate remedy to them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £794.77 for 3.69 days' leave. | Upheld | — | £795 |
| Other | The judgment states that all other heads of claim were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52, but does not identify those heads of claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £795
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.