Case 4103483/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103483/2023 Mr H Shepherd v Edinburgh Honey Company — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103483/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103483/2023 Mr H Shepherd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that Mr H Shepherd had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered Edinburgh Honey Company to pay damages of £319.20, described as one week’s average pay.
The judgment also recorded that, under Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002, breach of contract in respect of notice is not a tribunal jurisdiction to which s.38 of that Act applies. On that basis, the tribunal made no award for failure to give a statement of employment particulars. The hearing listed for 6 September 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £319.20, being one week’s average pay. It also stated that breach of contract in respect of notice is not a tribunal jurisdiction to which s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 applies, so no award was made for failure to give a statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £319 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £319
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.