Case 4106758/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106758/2023, 4106774/2023, 4106766/2023 & 4106773/2023 Ms C Mair v D & G Seafoods Buckie Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106758/2023
- Decision date
- 14 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106758/2023, 4106774/2023, 4106766/2023 & 4106773/2023 Ms C Mair
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge issued a Rule 21 judgment on the available material and conjoined cases 4106758/2023, 4106774/2023, 4106766/2023 and 4106773/2023. The judgment awarded Ms C Mair £1,378.13 as pay in lieu of notice, calculated at 3.5 x £393.75, £900.00 as accrued holiday pay, calculated as 10 days x 8 x £11.25, and £1,181.25 as a redundancy payment, calculated as 3 weeks x £393.75. The award was therefore for a total of £3,459.38.
The tribunal also directed that the respondent could deduct Income Tax and Employee National Insurance Contributions if required by law before paying the sums, provided it remitted any deductions to HMRC and gave the claimant written evidence of the deductions and remittance. Payment of the balance would satisfy the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Awarded as pay in lieu of notice, calculated as 3.5 x £393.75. The judgment does not separately label this sum as wrongful dismissal or breach of contract, so it is classified as breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,378 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as accrued holiday pay, calculated as 10 days x 8 x £11.25. | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Redundancy | Awarded as a redundancy payment, calculated as 3 weeks x £393.75. | Upheld | — | £1,181 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,459
- across all upheld claims
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.