Case 4103659/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103659/2019 Miss G Menguy v Brian McAteer T/A BM Design — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103659/2019
- Decision date
- 16 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103659/2019 Miss G Menguy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge Robert Gall determined the case on the available material under rule 21. The tribunal found that Miss G Menguy had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent, Brian McAteer T/A BM Design, to pay damages of £432.98 net.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. On that basis it awarded a redundancy payment of £681, calculated by reference to the claimant's age of 45, length of service of two complete years, and a weekly wage of £227. The hearing listed for 21 June 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings 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 ordered damages of £432.98 net. | Upheld | — | £433 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £681, calculated by reference to age 45, two complete years' service, and a weekly wage of £227. | Upheld | — | £681 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,114
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 of the 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.