Case 4104273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Stevenson v Represented by:15 Mr P Kissen Solicitor Black Wolf Brewery Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104273/2023
- Decision date
- 31 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Stevenson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Richard Stevenson was employed by Black Wolf Brewery Ltd from 6 January 2020 as a Warehouse Production Manager. The Tribunal found that he was never provided with written particulars of employment, despite asking for a contract or statement of terms. On 11 May 2023 he was suspended with allegations of misconduct, he denied the allegations at the meeting on 15 May 2023, and on 19 May 2023 he was summarily dismissed. He appealed in writing but received no response and no appeal hearing was arranged.
The Tribunal found Mr Stevenson to be a credible and reliable witness. It held that the dismissal was unfair under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996 because there was no proper investigation, no disclosure of evidence in advance, no proper disciplinary meeting, no right to accompaniment and no action on appeal, and it said the ACAS Code had been breached in a wholesale manner. It also found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy because the respondent ceased trading at the warehouse and dismissed the other staff. The Tribunal said the summary termination was a breach of contract, but that point did not change the award because the loss flowing from it was already covered by the compensatory award.
On remedy, the Tribunal accepted the basic award of £2,893.50 and then applied a 25% uplift to give £3,616.87. It calculated the compensatory award by comparing the earnings the claimant would have received had the employment continued with his post-dismissal income from benefits, OCS and My Life Bathrooms, resulting in loss of £4,070.56, and added £500 for loss of statutory rights, giving £4,570.56 before uplift and £5,713.20 after uplift. It also awarded £2,780 under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars and £1,334.43 for unpaid holiday pay. The total award was £13,444.50, stated to be net of tax with no deductions due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the dismissal unfair under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. It found no proper investigation or disciplinary procedure, no advance disclosure of allegations, no offer of accompaniment, and no appeal hearing. It also found the reason for dismissal was redundancy and applied a 25% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992. | Upheld | — | £9,330 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found that the summary termination was a breach of contract. It said the contractual loss was fully addressed in the compensatory award for unfair dismissal and made no separate damages award for this head. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal found the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment in breach of section 1 ERA 1996. It made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 of four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £2,780 |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant for annual leave due on termination under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It treated the shortfall as an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded the sum claimed in the schedule of loss. | Upheld | — | £1,334 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,445
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,617
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,713
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 WTR 1998
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
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.