Case 4103516/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Primary Out of School Care — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103516/2020
- Decision date
- 9 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which no response had been presented, so Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman decided the claim on the available material. The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend the claim to include a complaint about payment of notice.
On the available material, the tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £285, described as 3 x £95 net per week. The judgment also records that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment.
The redundancy payment was assessed at £285, described as 3 x £95 gross per week. No other remedy components are recorded in the judgment, and the total monetary outcome from the two awards is £570.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The tribunal granted the claimant's amendment to include a notice pay complaint and ordered payment of £285, described as 3 x £95 net per week. | Upheld | — | £285 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £285, described as 3 x £95 gross per week. | Upheld | — | £285 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £570
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.