Case 4111019/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Hunter v Xel Manufacturing Services Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4111019/2018
- Decision date
- 12 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mary Kearns
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a production operator from 4 March 2013 until 7 May 2018, when he was dismissed for redundancy. The respondent filed a response stating that it was not defending the claim and explained that it had stopped trading on 7 May 2018.
The tribunal found that the claimant had five years' continuous employment, was aged 41 or over throughout that period, and had normal gross pay of £355 per week. It awarded a redundancy payment of £2,663 and damages of £1,775 for failure to pay five weeks' notice pay.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal calculated the claimant's pro-rated holiday entitlement to termination as 9.69 days and found that he had taken 9.5 days paid holiday, leaving no accrued but untaken holiday pay due.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and calculated the statutory redundancy payment as £2,662.50, rounded to £2,663. | Upheld | — | £2,663 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned failure to pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal awarded five weeks' pay at £355 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,775 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had used his pro-rated holiday entitlement and had no accrued but untaken holiday at termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,438
- 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.