Case 4104690/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Nicola McGinness v Core Plant Hire Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104690/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ronald Mackay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Nicola McGinness
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Nicola McGinness, who had worked for Core Plant Hire Ltd as an administrator, brought a single unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal recorded that the respondent did not defend the claim and did not advance any potentially fair reason for dismissal. On that basis, and applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found the dismissal unfair.
On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant had gross weekly pay of £278 and net weekly pay of £230. Although a payment described as a redundancy payment had been made, the respondent had not established that the dismissal was in fact by reason of redundancy, so the exclusion from entitlement to a basic award in section 122(4) ERA did not apply. With five years' service between the ages of 22 and 41, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,390.
For the compensatory award, the tribunal noted that from July 2020 the claimant became self-employed as a photographer and earned about £1,000 to £1,300 per month for around five months, before lockdown restrictions prevented her from continuing. The tribunal also noted that she had not applied for other employed work and had therefore not fully mitigated her loss. It found no financial loss for the first five months, but awarded compensation for 10 weeks, reflecting the claimant's inability to pursue her business and taking account of the redundancy payment. The compensatory award was £2,300, producing a total award of £3,690.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent did not defend the claim or advance any potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The award comprised a basic award of £1,390 and a compensatory award of £2,300. | Upheld | — | £3,690 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,690
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,390
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,300
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98(4) 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.