Case 4110378/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110378/2019 Mr J Kinniburgh v Instock, I And J Engineering — 2019
- Case reference
- 4110378/2019
- Decision date
- 22 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robert Gall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4110378/2019 Mr J Kinniburgh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented to the claim, so the Employment Judge issued judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the available material. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of £351.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £1,400. In addition, it found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and held that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,632.50.
The listed hearing on 6 November 2019 was cancelled. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Robert Gall on 22 October 2019.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made an unauthorised deduction from wages and was ordered to pay £351. | Upheld | — | £351 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and was awarded £1,400 in damages. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
| Redundancy | The claimant was found to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was held entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,632.50. | Upheld | — | £2,633 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,384
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 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.