Case 4102812/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Bouncy Castle Man Ltd v Represented by Mr M Eaglesham Mr Connor Beveridge and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102812/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Bouncy Castle Man Ltd
Respondents
- Represented by Mr M Eaglesham Mr Connor Beveridge
- ’s claim of breach of contract, being the employer’s contract claim of which Notice was sent to the
- At this hearing, is successful, and the
- (THE BOUNCY CASTLE MAN LTD) the sum of £6,500 (SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS ONLY), being outstanding payments in a loan to the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Scotland on 30 June 2023 before Employment Judge C McManus, identified the claimant as The Bouncy Castle Man Ltd under Rule 34 as a substitution for "Mark Eaglesham t/a 'The Bouncy Castle Man'." The respondent was Mr Connor Beveridge and the case was undefended.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim. The judgment records that notice of the employer's contract claim was sent to the respondent on 26 April 2023, that no defence had been made, and that there was no appearance by the respondent at the hearing. On that basis, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £6,500.
The sum awarded was described as outstanding payments in a loan to the respondent by the claimant, used by the claimant to purchase vehicle registration number TM58 DEC. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no separate remedy breakdown was recorded beyond the single award of £6,500.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated this as the employer's contract claim. Notice was sent on 26 April 2023, no defence was lodged, and the respondent did not appear at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,500
- 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.