Case 4101696/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101696/2019 Mr C Abeyratna v Global Rugby Network Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4101696/2019
- Decision date
- 24 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101696/2019 Mr C Abeyratna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages, and orders payment of £10,663.96 net.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £7,610.70 net. Separately, it found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,524.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £10,663.96 net. | Upheld | — | £10,664 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £7,610.70 net. | Upheld | — | £7,611 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,524, calculated from age 27, 3 years' service, and a wage of £769.23 capped at the statutory maximum of £500 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,524 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,799
- 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.