Case 4105473/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bell v Furniture T Go Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105473/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Glasgow, with Employment Judge M Robison sitting alone, issued an oral judgment with reasons on 14 December 2023. The respondent submitted no response. The tribunal held that Mr P Bell was unfairly dismissed following a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Transfer of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The tribunal ordered Furniture T Go Ltd to pay Mr P Bell £510 in respect of arrears of pay and commission, £8,860.50 in respect of unfair dismissal, and £4,590 in respect of notice pay. On the extracted text, no further factual findings or detailed reasoning are recorded beyond the conclusion and the award figures.
The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £13,960.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award of £510 in respect of arrears of pay and commission. | Upheld | — | £510 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed following a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Transfer of Employment) Regulations 2006 and awarded £8,860.50 in respect of unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £8,861 |
| Breach of contract | Award of £4,590 in respect of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,590 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,961
- 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.