Case 4105539/2022 · Employment Tribunal
1'1 v Mr D Duncan Greyfriars Roofing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105539/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1'1
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Edinburgh on 13 February 2023 before Employment Judge Sangster, held that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. The respondent, Greyfriars Roofing Limited, was ordered to pay the claimant £4,972.50 by way of compensation. Oral reasons were given at the hearing under rule 62(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment also records that the claimant’s complaints for holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages were dismissed, following withdrawal by the claimant. No separate monetary award is recorded for those claims in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds and that the respondent is ordered to pay £4,972.50 by way of compensation. | Upheld | — | £4,973 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment says the complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,973
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.