Case 4112540/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Xel Manufacturing Services Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112540/2018
- Decision date
- 26 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge FJ Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim. Employment Judge Garvie issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £4,037 in damages. It also found that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,392, calculated by reference to seven years' service and age 62 at termination.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awarded £2,368.80, based on 211.50 untaken hours at £11.20 per hour. The hearing listed for 3 October 2018 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages of £4,037. | Upheld | — | £4,037 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of £7,392, calculated by reference to length of service and age at termination. | Upheld | — | £7,392 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and awards £2,368.80. | Upheld | — | £2,369 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,798
- 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.