Case 4102055/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Martin v Bmu Scotland Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102055/2017
- Decision date
- 11 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment, issued because no response had been presented by the respondent and the Employment Judge decided the case on the available material. The tribunal held that Mr M Martin had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded him damages of £1,875, being 3 weeks' notice pay at £625 per week gross.
The tribunal also held that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. It ordered a redundancy payment of £1,467, calculated by reference to the claimant's age of 28 years, 3 years' continuous service, the effective date of termination on 28 April 2017, and gross weekly wages of £625, with the statutory maximum weekly amount capped at £489, so that the award was 3 weeks at £489 gross. The hearing listed for 13 September 2017 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract as to notice and awarded damages of £1,875, described as 3 weeks' notice pay at £625 per week gross. | Upheld | — | £1,875 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and ordered a redundancy payment of £1,467, calculated from age 28, 3 years' continuous service, an effective date of termination of 28 April 2017, gross weekly wages of £625, and the statutory maximum weekly cap of £489, resulting in 3 weeks at £489 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,467 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,342
- 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.