Case 4105558/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105558/2024 Mrs G Bain v Glasgow East Women’s Aid (in Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 4105558/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105558/2024 Mrs G Bain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal found that Mrs G Bain had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered Glasgow East Women’s Aid (in Liquidation) to pay damages of £4,678.38.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £9,528.80. Because she had already received £7,089.69 from the Redundancy Payments Service, the first respondent was ordered to pay the remaining £2,439.11. The judgment records no discrimination issues and no additional remedy beyond these two sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the first respondent to pay damages of £4,678.38. | Upheld | — | £4,678 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £9,528.80. As the claimant had already received £7,089.69 from the Redundancy Payments Service, the first respondent was ordered to pay the balance of £2,439.11. | Upheld | — | £2,439 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,117
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.