Case 4104198/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Dempster v Stella Brodie t/a Grouchos — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104198/2020
- Decision date
- 27 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Dempster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Dempster, worked for Grouchos as a general shop assistant from 6 December 2014 and was paid weekly gross wages of £252. The store closed when the Covid pandemic struck, and on 14 June 2020 the respondent informed a colleague that the claimant and the others were being terminated, with no notice or redundancy payments to be paid. The respondent did not enter a response and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal accepted the claimant and the other witnesses as credible and reliable.
On redundancy, the tribunal found that when the claimant's employment ended the respondent had ceased to operate from the premises where he worked, and that the dismissal was wholly or mainly attributable to the cessation of the business requirements for employees to do that work. Applying the statutory presumption of redundancy in section 163(2) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. Using a week's pay of £252, five complete years' service, and the claimant's age of 21, the tribunal assessed the redundancy payment at £630.
The tribunal also found that the respondent gave no notice at all, although the claimant was entitled to five weeks' statutory minimum notice under section 86(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant made reasonable efforts to mitigate his losses but received no replacement income during the five-week period, and awarded £1,260 in damages for breach of contract. In relation to holiday, the tribunal found that the claimant had taken one week of leave in the holiday year and had 4.6 weeks outstanding at termination on 14 June 2020. It awarded £1,159.20 gross for unpaid accrued holiday under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 13 ERA 1996. The total award was £3,049.20 gross of tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded under ERA 1996. The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and calculated the award using a week's pay of £252, five complete years' service, and the claimant's age of 21 at termination. | Upheld | — | £630 |
| Breach of contract | Damages awarded for failure to give the statutory minimum notice period incorporated by section 86(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to five weeks' notice and calculated damages as £252 x 5. | Upheld | — | £1,260 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unpaid accrued holiday on termination, treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996 and Reg 14 WTR 1998. The tribunal calculated 4.6 weeks of untaken leave at £252 per week, giving £1,159.20 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,159 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,049
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.163(2) ERA 1996 presumption of redundancy
- s.139(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.86(4) ERA 1996
- s.88(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.88(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Reg 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Greater Glasgow Health Board v Lamont
- Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment
- Secretary of State for Employment v Wilson
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.