Case 4105348/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Martin Precision Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105348/2020
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr A Wallace's unfair dismissal claim against Martin Precision Limited. It recorded a basic award of £0 because a redundancy payment already received by the claimant extinguished that element. The compensatory calculation included £15,643 for loss from the effective date of termination, 8 September 2020, to 5 March 2021, plus £4,332.96 for eight weeks' future loss, making £19,976.21 before any reduction.
The tribunal then applied a 60% reduction to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy in any event. After that reduction, the monetary award was fixed at £7,990.48. The judgment also records a prescribed element of £6,257.20 for the period 8 September 2020 to 5 March 2021, an excess of £1,733.28, and states that the recoupment regulations apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £0 because it was extinguished by a redundancy payment already received. The tribunal calculated a compensatory element of £19,976.21, comprising £15,643 for loss to 5 March 2021 and £4,332.96 for eight weeks' future loss, then applied a 60% reduction reflecting the chance of a fair redundancy dismissal. The final monetary award was £7,990.48. The recoupment regulations applied; the prescribed element was £6,257.20 and the excess was £1,733.28. | Upheld | — | £7,990 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,990
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,990
- 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.