Case 4107439/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107439/2019 Mrs K Murray v The Carloway Mill Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107439/2019
- Decision date
- 28 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107439/2019 Mrs K Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented by the respondent. The decision was therefore made on the available material.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £4,824, calculated as 12 weeks at £402 per week. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £1,608, calculated as 4 weeks at £402 per week.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a statement of employment particulars and awarded a further £1,608, again calculated as 4 weeks at £402 per week.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice; damages awarded for 12 weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,824 |
| Holiday pay | Judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement; award calculated as 4 weeks x £402. | Upheld | — | £1,608 |
| Other | Award made for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. This does not map neatly to the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | £1,608 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,040
- 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.