Case 4105594/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105594/2024 Mr S Baillie v Edinburgh Construction Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105594/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105594/2024 Mr S Baillie
Respondent
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 Edinburgh Construction Limited had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £844.37 net. It also found that notice pay had not been paid and ordered £1,787.96, and that a redundancy payment due to the claimant had not been paid and ordered £2,132.52.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and awarded £500.00 as compensation for loss of statutory rights. The holiday pay aspect was dismissed because the tribunal had insufficient information to determine whether holiday pay was due and, if so, in what amount. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment was £5,264.85.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £844 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,788 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,133 |
| Unfair dismissal | Awarded compensation for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said it lacked sufficient information to determine whether holiday pay was due and, if so, in what amount. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,265
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £500
- 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.