Case 4102653/2022 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT GLASGOW Judgment of the Employment Tribunal, on Remedy, in Case No: 4102653/2022 Heard at Edinburgh on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th August 2022 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr Angelo Bruno v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102653/2022
- Decision date
- 12 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McPherson
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
1 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT GLASGOW Judgment of the Employment Tribunal, on Remedy, in Case No: 4102653/2022 Heard at Edinburgh on the Cloud Based Video Platform on th August 2022 at am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr Angelo Bruno
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe remedy hearing took place in Edinburgh by cloud-based video platform on 9 August 2022 before Employment Judge J d'Inverno, following the liability judgment entered by Employment Judge McPherson on 20 June 2022. The respondent's administrators did not appear but had consented to the proceedings continuing. The claimant did not attend despite reminders, and the tribunal proceeded on the papers and correspondence received from the Insolvency Service.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed from 4 August 2014 until 9 May 2022, when he was summarily dismissed for redundancy. It recorded a relevant gross weekly wage of £552.40, a gross daily rate of £93.50, a net weekly wage of £518, and a net daily wage of £74. Applying the then-applicable statutory cap of £571 per week, the tribunal calculated a statutory redundancy entitlement of £5,710 for 10 weeks.
Because the Insolvency Service had already paid £5,559 towards redundancy, the tribunal held that a balance of £151 remained due and entered judgment for that amount. It also ordered payment of £8,415 gross for the 90-day protective award made in the earlier liability judgment, calculated on the gross daily rate and stated to be without deductions and not subject to the weekly wage cap.
The tribunal further awarded £150 for an unauthorised deduction from wages for the April 2021 pay period and £3,626 as compensation for breach of contract arising from dismissal without the claimant's minimum 7-week notice entitlement, expressed as 7 weeks' net pay. The holiday pay claim for 1.25 days was dismissed because it had already been satisfied by the Insolvency Service's payment of £92.50. The monetary awards made by the tribunal totalled £12,342.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages for the April 2021 pay period, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £150 |
| Breach of contract | Compensation for dismissal without the claimant's minimum 7-week statutory notice entitlement, calculated as 7 weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £3,626 |
| Redundancy | Protective award made in terms of paragraph 7 of Judge McPherson's liability judgment; 90-day protected period; gross and without deductions, and not subject to the weekly wage cap. | Upheld | — | £8,415 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for 1.25 days' accrued but untaken holiday pay had already been satisfied by the Insolvency Service in June 2022 by payment of £92.50, so it fell away and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Balance of the claimant's statutory redundancy entitlement remained due after £5,559 had already been paid by the Insolvency Service. The judgment states the full entitlement was £5,710, leaving £151 payable; the payment date is stated once as 6 June 2020 but is referred to elsewhere in the reasons as June 2022. | Upheld | — | £151 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,342
- 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.