Case 4104247/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Buckley v The Kindmans Public House Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4104247/2025
- Decision date
- 25 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Buckley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the available material, no response having been presented by the respondent. Employment Judge M Whitcombe sat alone.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,765.63 gross, calculated by reference to 23 years of service. The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay damages of £1,125.00 gross, representing 12 weeks of statutory notice, which exceeded the claimant's contractual entitlement.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,765.63 gross, based on 23 years' service. | Upheld | — | £2,766 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; respondent ordered to pay damages of £1,125.00 gross (12 weeks statutory notice, which exceeds the contractual entitlement). | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,891
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.