Case 4105120/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Sproat v Represented by Mr R Lawson Solicitor Amey Service Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4105120/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Sproat
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Sproat's claim for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 101A or 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It upheld his claim for unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the 1996 Act.
The judgment records that the respondent, Amey Service Limited, was ordered to pay Mr Sproat a compensatory award of £10,581.99. No separate basic award or interest is recorded in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 101A or 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £10,581.99. | Upheld | — | £10,582 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,582
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £10,582
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 101A ERA 1996
- section 104 ERA 1996
- section 94 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.