Case 4105967/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105967/20225 Hearing Held in person in Glasgow on & January 2023 Employment Judge - A Strain Mr P Hudson v Represented by: Self — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105967/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Strain Date
- Venue
- person in Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105967/20225 Hearing Held in person in Glasgow on & January 2023 Employment Judge - A Strain Mr P Hudson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Glasgow on 18 and 19 January 2023, before Employment Judge A Strain, the tribunal heard Mr P Hudson's claim against Campbell Meyer & Co. Limited. The judgment records that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was successful.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £28,182 to the claimant. The award was made up of a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £25,612.50. The extracted reasons state only that oral reasons were given at the conclusion of the hearing, so no further findings or legal tests are recorded in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and ordered the respondent to pay £28,182, comprising a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £25,612.50. The extracted text renders the compensatory award with a spacing/OCR issue as '£25,61 2.50'. | Upheld | — | £28,182 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,182
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,570
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £25,613
- 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.