Case 4104467/2022 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104467/2022 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ian Baird v Newsteam Group Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104467/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104467/2022 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ian Baird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of a redundancy payment, notice pay, pay in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave, and arrears of pay. The respondent resisted all claims. The tribunal found that discussions about possible redundancy took place at meetings on 6 December 2021, 17 December 2021 and 20 April 2022, but that no offer of redundancy had been made and accepted, and that any redundancy position was subject to Board approval.
The tribunal found that there was no evidence that Board approval for redundancy was obtained or that the claimant was told it had been granted. Applying section 139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that entitlement to a redundancy payment required the claimant to have been dismissed on grounds of redundancy. It found no basis to conclude that the claimant had been dismissed; the claimant and respondent both gave evidence indicating uncertainty as to whether the employment was continuing.
On pay after 10 April 2022, the tribunal found that the respondent had paid the claimant in full while he was absent after being told not to attend work, but that following the 20 April 2022 meeting he was required to provide medical certification for further absence. The claimant did not provide medical certificates and did not attend work. The tribunal was not persuaded that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from pay after 10 April 2022.
The tribunal dismissed all claims. No monetary remedy was awarded. The judgment records the evidence as confusing and unclear, but concludes that the claimant had not proved either that he had been dismissed by the respondent or that he had suffered financial losses which were unlawfully imposed upon him.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found no entitlement to a redundancy payment because the claimant had not proved that he had been dismissed on grounds of redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This reflects the notice pay claim. The tribunal found there was no basis to conclude that the claimant had been dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records a claim for pay in respect of annual leave accrued but untaken and states that the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal was not persuaded that the respondent had unlawfully made deductions from the claimant's pay after 10 April 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 139(1) of the Employment Rights Act 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.