Case 4110799/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wotherspoon v Clydeview Care Home Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4110799/2018
- Decision date
- 3 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mel Sangster
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wotherspoon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard in Glasgow by Employment Judge Mel Sangster, with oral reasons given at the hearing. The respondent name was corrected from Clydeview Nursing Home to Clydeview Care Home Limited for the purposes of the judgment. The Tribunal then dealt with two matters: a notice pay claim framed as breach of contract/unlawful deductions from wages, and a redundancy payment claim.
The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract/unlawful deductions claim in relation to notice pay because it had been submitted outwith the requisite period. That claim therefore did not proceed on the merits.
On redundancy, the Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £969.24 on termination of employment and that he had not received it. The respondent was ordered to pay that sum to the claimant. No other monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for breach of contract/unlawful deductions from wages in relation to notice pay because it was submitted outwith the requisite period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £969.24 on termination of employment, which he had not received, and ordered the respondent to pay that sum. | Upheld | — | £969 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £969
- 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.