Case 4120806/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Murray v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4120806/2018
- Decision date
- 16 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a breach of contract complaint alleging that the respondent failed to give the correct notice of dismissal following a redundancy process. The tribunal found that the claimant had taken up a Customer and Trading Manager role on a four-week trial basis, decided not to continue in it, and was then given notice at a meeting on 25 June 2018 that her employment would end on 7 July 2018.
The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice, whether under contract or statute, and had been given no more than two weeks' notice. It rejected the respondent's argument that there had been an agreed early release from a longer notice period, finding there was no evidential basis that 12 weeks' notice had been given or that the claimant had waived the respondent's failure to give proper notice.
The complaint was therefore well founded. The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to damages equivalent to 10 weeks' pay, less any earnings received from her new job during what would have been the notice period, but left the amount to be agreed by the parties or determined at a remedies hearing if necessary.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract in respect of failure to provide correct notice of dismissal was found well founded. Compensation was stated as 10 weeks' pay less earnings in alternative employment during the 10 weeks following 7 July 2018, but the tribunal did not determine a monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.