Case 4111036/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Wardlaw v TSLC (No 1) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111036/2021
- Decision date
- 7 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Wardlaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Wardlaw began employment with TSLC (No 1) Ltd on 23 October 2020 and was dismissed on 23 June 2021. Her unfair dismissal complaint had already been dismissed on 16 October 2021 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, as she did not have the necessary qualifying service. The final hearing therefore concerned only her breach of contract claim about notice pay.
The parties agreed that there was no written employment contract or statement of employment particulars and no oral or written agreement giving a notice period more generous than the statutory minimum. The respondent had paid one week's notice pay, which the claimant received. Applying section 86(1)(a) and section 86(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the authorities cited in the reasons, the Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled only to one week's notice and that the respondent had not breached the contract. The breach of contract claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed by order dated 16 October 2021 because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it, the claimant not having the necessary qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay only; the Tribunal found the respondent had paid the statutory one week's notice and had not breached the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.86(4) ERA 1996
- s.86(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment [1984] IRLR 209, HL
- Secretary of State for Employment v Wilson [1977] IRLR 483, EAT
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.