Case 4102910/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102910/2022 Miss S Davis v SWH (2020) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102910/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102910/2022 Miss S Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 21 judgment in which the respondent stated that no part of the claim was contested. Employment Judge Frances Eccles issued judgment on the available material on 1 August 2022 and cancelled the hearing listed for 8 August 2022.
The tribunal found that Miss S Davis had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,950.87, described as one month at £1,950.87 per month. It also found that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,072.00, calculated as 13 weeks at £544.00 per week.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £586.54, calculated as one week at £586.54 per week. The total monetary award disclosed by the judgment is £9,609.41.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Damages for one month’s notice, calculated at £1,950.87 per month. | Upheld | — | £1,951 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded at £7,072.00, calculated as 13 weeks at £544.00 per week. | Upheld | — | £7,072 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday entitlement awarded at £586.54, calculated as one week at £586.54 per week. | Upheld | — | £587 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,609
- 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.