Case 4102597/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Katie Common v Represented by E Stafford - Solicitor Seaforth Saddlers Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102597/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rory McPherson
- Venue
- Inverness
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Katie Common
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Inverness, sitting before Employment Judge Rory McPherson, held that Katie Common's claim for unfair dismissal succeeded against Seaforth Saddlers Ltd. Oral reasons were given at the hearing on 15 January 2020.
The tribunal awarded a basic award under ss.119 to 122 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the sum of £3,739.50 and a compensatory award under s.123 ERA 1996 in the sum of £12,174.93. The judgment states that the compensatory award included a 25% uplift in accordance with s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The total monetary award was £15,914.43. The tribunal also recorded that there was no prescribed element for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996, so the sum was payable immediately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. It awarded a basic award of £3,739.50 and a compensatory award of £12,174.93, the latter stated to include a 25% uplift under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992. | Upheld | — | £15,914 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,914
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,740
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,175
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- ss.119 to 122 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.