Case 4102594/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Whiteford v Fresh Newarthill Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102594/2020
- Decision date
- 26 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Whiteford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend the respondent's name from Fresh Limited to Fresh Newarthill Limited, relying on the respondent name shown on the Acas Early Conciliation certificate and on the claimant's payslips, P45 and P60.
It then found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,662.50, calculated as 9.5 weeks' wages at £175 per week. The judgment records this as a successful redundancy payment claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £1,225, representing 7 weeks' pay at £175 per week. In addition, it found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £73.50, calculated by reference to 2.1 days at £35 per day after deducting 3 days from 5.1 days accrued. The monetary awards set out in the judgment total £2,961.00.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of 9.5 weeks' wages at £175 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,663 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded 7 weeks' pay at £175 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,225 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay holiday entitlement and awarded £73.50, calculated as 2.1 days at £35 per day after 5.1 days accrued less 3 days. | Upheld | — | £74 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,961
- 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.