Case 4111041/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Russell v Neil Coyle T/A Mansebrae Motors — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111041/2021
- Decision date
- 9 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3 February 2022 before Employment Judge B Campbell, the tribunal held that Mr Russell was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £5,906.25 and Mr Cheyne was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £6,562.50. The respondent was not present or represented.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimants' complaints in relation to notice pay or pay for accrued holidays because those claims were out of time. Those complaints were dismissed. No other remedy was recorded in the judgment, so the total monetary award reflected only the two redundancy payments.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mr Russell was found entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in this sum. | Upheld | — | £5,906 |
| Redundancy | Mr Cheyne was found entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in this sum. | Upheld | — | £6,563 |
| Breach of contract | The claimants' complaints about notice pay were dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear them as they were out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimants' complaints about pay for accrued holidays were dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear them as they were out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,469
- 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.