Case 4116480/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Hughes v Represented by: Mr J Hughes - Lay Representative PJGP Ltd t/a Papa John’s — 2019
- Case reference
- 4116480/2018
- Decision date
- 18 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge F Eccles, sitting in Glasgow, found that Miss A Hughes was unfairly dismissed by PJGP Ltd t/a Papa John’s. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £700, described as 2 weeks at £350, and a compensatory award of £1,680.
In addition to the unfair dismissal awards, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £700 in notice pay, also calculated as 2 weeks at £350. The judgment records a further award of £700 for failure to provide the claimant with a statement containing the particulars of change to her employment particulars.
The judgment does not set out a separate legal analysis in the extract provided, but the operative findings are reflected in the monetary awards and the total sum due. The overall amount awarded by the tribunal was £3,780.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £700 and a compensatory award of £1,680. | Upheld | — | £2,380 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered payment of £700 described as notice pay, calculated as 2 weeks at £350. | Upheld | — | £700 |
| Other | The tribunal ordered payment of £700 for failure to provide a statement containing the particulars of change to the claimant's employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £700 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,780
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £700
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,680
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.