Case 4101135/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101135/2022 Mr S Gaw v SR Flooring Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101135/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101135/2022 Mr S Gaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented, so the Employment Judge issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The claimant, Mr S Gaw, and the respondent, SR Flooring Services Ltd, were named in the judgment, and the hearing listed for 05 May 2022 was cancelled.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. On that basis, it ordered the respondent to pay damages of £4,313.28, calculated in the judgment as £359.44 multiplied by 12 weeks.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. That award was stated as £11,520.60, calculated as £443.10 multiplied by 26 weeks. The judgment does not record any further substantive reasoning beyond those findings and the two monetary awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £4,313.28, calculated as £359.44 x 12 weeks. | Upheld | — | £4,313 |
| Redundancy | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £11,520.60, calculated as £443.10 x 26 weeks. | Upheld | — | £11,521 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,834
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.