Case 4112646/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112646/2018 Mrs V Grant v Xel Manufacturing Services Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112646/2018
- Decision date
- 10 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Jane Garvie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112646/2018 Mrs V Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and the Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of £343.85. It also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded £3,228 based on 12 weeks' statutory notice.
The tribunal further found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £5,649, calculated by reference to the claimant's age of 71 at dismissal and 14 years' service using the gov.uk redundancy calculator.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and orders payment of this sum. | Upheld | — | £344 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awards damages based on 12 weeks' statutory notice. | Upheld | — | £3,228 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to this redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,649 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,221
- 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.