Case 4122825/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Doogan v Leisure Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4122825/2018
- Decision date
- 3 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Doogan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Stephen Doogan was unfairly dismissed by Redwood Leisure Ltd. The judgment records that the respondent was ordered to pay a monetary award of £5,439.75.
The disposal states that the award included a 10% uplift to the compensatory award because the respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code, and a 30% reduction to both the compensatory award and the basic award to reflect the claimant's contribution to his dismissal. The judgment also identifies a prescribed element of £609 relating to the period between 10 and 31 August 2018.
The tribunal recorded that the monetary award exceeded the prescribed element by £4,830.75. Written reasons were to be provided in due course, so this extract contains the outcome and remedy but not the tribunal's full reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a monetary award of £5,439.75. The judgment says this figure included a 10% uplift to the compensatory award for failure to follow the ACAS Code and a 30% reduction to both the compensatory and basic awards for the claimant's contribution to his dismissal. | Upheld | — | £5,440 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,440
- across all upheld claims
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.