Case 4102206/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Lynn Corrigan v Mr G Bathgate Solicitor Apple Oils Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102206/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lynn Corrigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Lynn Corrigan, was summarily dismissed by Apple Oils Ltd on 20 December 2019 after allegations that she had removed £115,000 from the business account without permission and had directed taxi driver Tam Boyle to pay weigh-in money into her personal bank account. She also brought an unlawful deduction of wages claim under section 13 ERA 1996, but that claim was withdrawn under Rule 51 and the tribunal expressly recorded that it was not dismissed so that she could reserve her position for any further claim.
Applying section 98(2) and section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal accepted that the respondent believed the misconduct allegations, but held that neither the second nor the third Burchell limb was met. The taxi money allegation failed because the taxi business was separate from Apple Oils and the weigh-in money was not company money. The £115,000 allegation also failed because the tribunal found no reasonable basis to link that transfer to theft from the respondent: it accepted the claimant's evidence that, during a confrontation with Mr McDonald on 11 June 2018, he told her to take '50%' and leave, and it noted that the money was later repaid in instalments.
The tribunal rejected deductions for Polkey and contributory fault. It found that a sufficient investigation would have shown that the principal allegations could not be upheld, so there was no basis for a Polkey reduction. It also found that the claimant's conduct in transferring the £115,000 and receiving the taxi weigh-in payments was not blameworthy on the facts found, so there was no reduction under sections 123(6) or 122(2) ERA 1996. The final order records a total award of £31,734.21 and a monetary award of £22,671.71 subject to the recoupment regulations.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the dismissal unfair because neither the second nor third limbs of Burchell were met. It found no reasonable basis for the allegation that taxi weigh-in money was company money, and no reasonable basis to connect the £115,000 transfer with theft from the respondent. The final order records a total award of £31,734.21 and a monetary award of £22,671.71 subject to recoupment. | Upheld | — | £31,734 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn under Rule 51; the tribunal expressly recorded that it was not dismissed, because the claimant wished to reserve the right to bring a further claim and the tribunal accepted there was a legitimate reason for doing so. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,734
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,063
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £22,672
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- Hitt
- Polkey deduction
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
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.