Case 4106980/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Shawfield Mot Centre — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106980/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O'Donnell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented to the claim. On the available material, Employment Judge P O'Donnell determined the claim without a hearing and recorded four separate monetary awards in favour of Mr D Mercer against Shawfield Mot Centre.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £405. It also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,620 for that claim.
The judgment further found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,620. In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,053.
The decision is a short Rule 21 disposal and does not record any contested legal analysis beyond the findings set out in the judgment. The total of the four awards is £4,698.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Rule 21 judgment; respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £405 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,620 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was found entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £1,620 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,053 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,698
- 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.