Case 4112075/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Marr v Xel Manufacturing Services Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112075/2018
- Decision date
- 29 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Marr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £618. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,472, calculated as four weeks at £618 net per week.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,700, calculated as 25 weeks at £508, the statutory maximum week's pay. The listed hearing on 3 October 2018 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment states the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £618. | Upheld | — | £618 |
| Breach of contract | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £2,472, calculated as 4 weeks at £618 net per week. | Upheld | — | £2,472 |
| Redundancy | Judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £12,700, calculated as 25 weeks at £508 statutory maximum week's pay. | Upheld | — | £12,700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,790
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the 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.