Case 4104968/2020 · Employment Tribunal
16 A EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104968/2020 Mr A Edghill v Adcentiv Media Retail Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4104968/2020
- Decision date
- 21 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Susan Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
16 A EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104968/2020 Mr A Edghill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material because no response had been presented to the claim. It found that Mr A Edghill had been unfairly dismissed and ordered the respondent to pay £4,801, made up of a basic award of £1,538 and a compensatory award of £3,263.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to give notice or pay in lieu of notice, and ordered payment of £1,538. It further found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave, and ordered payment of £1,704.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. The prescribed element was £2,763 and related to the period from 28 July 2020 to 29 September 2020. The judgment records that the monetary award exceeded the prescribed element by £5,280.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment issued under rule 21 because no response was presented. The award included a basic award of £1,538 and a compensatory award of £3,263. | Upheld | — | £4,801 |
| Breach of contract | Award was for failure to give notice or pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £1,538 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award related to accrued but untaken annual leave. | Upheld | — | £1,704 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,043
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,538
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,263
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.