Case 4105873/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Allen’s Flowers (Scotland Ltd) — 2018
- Case reference
- 4105873/2017
- Decision date
- 7 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Claire McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Hall succeeded on two monetary claims against Allen's Flowers (Scotland) Limited. The tribunal found that she had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. Applying section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and taking account of her age, three complete years of service, and gross weekly wage of £351, the tribunal ordered payment of £1,053.
The tribunal also held that the claimant was entitled to three weeks' statutory notice pay. Applying section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and using three complete years of service and a net weekly wage of £287.31, it ordered payment of £861.93. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no additional remedy elements were recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £1,053, calculated under section 162 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 using three complete years of service and a gross weekly wage of £351. | Upheld | — | £1,053 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to the net sum of £861.93 for three weeks' statutory notice pay, calculated under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 using three complete years of service and a net weekly wage of £287.31. | Upheld | — | £862 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,915
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.