Case 4106161/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106161/2022 Mrs F King v Onsite Property Management Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106161/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106161/2022 Mrs F King
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, so Employment Judge M Kearns issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material. The judgment records that the claimant, Mrs F King, had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and the respondent was ordered to pay £3,094.53, stated to be 7 weeks' pay at £442.05 per week gross.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The award for that claim was £4,641.53, stated to represent 10.5 weeks' pay at £442.05 per week.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. It ordered payment of £784.08, described as 9 days' pay. The hearing listed for 4 April 2023 was cancelled after the judgment was issued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded at 7 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £3,095 |
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £4,642 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay holiday entitlement; award made for 9 days' pay. | Upheld | — | £784 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,520
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.