Case 4104911/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Christie v Prestige Ajp Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4104911/2016
- Decision date
- 12 April 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Christie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim form was sent to the respondent on 30 September 2016 and that the respondent did not enter a response within the required 28 days. On that basis, Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman decided that a determination could properly be made without a hearing on both liability and remedy under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. It does not set out any contested factual findings about the dismissal itself, because the matter was determined on the available material in the respondent's absence.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £25,345.10. It identified a prescribed element of £5,700.24, relating to the period from October 2015 to March 2017, and recorded that the monetary award exceeded the prescribed element by £19,644.86.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to enter a response. The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded and that a monetary award of £25,345.10 was payable. The prescribed element was £5,700.24 for the period October 2015 to March 2017. | Upheld | — | £25,345 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,345
- across all upheld claims
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.