Case 4123758/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant Represented by: Ms M Swira (Strathclyde University Law Clinic) v Mrs K Ross Wilson — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123758/2018
- Decision date
- 29 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant Represented by: Ms M Swira (Strathclyde University Law Clinic)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Glasgow on 22 July 2019, Employment Judge M Whitcombe dealt with three linked claims by Mrs A Major, Mrs R MacDonald and Mrs K Ross Wilson against Bute House Limited, which did not attend and had no representation. The tribunal held that all three claimants were unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed without notice in breach of contract.
The tribunal awarded Mrs Major a basic award of £7,500 and a compensatory award of £6,491.24 for unfair dismissal. It also awarded her £2,781.96 net as notice pay for wrongful dismissal, plus £229 gross for accrued but untaken annual leave and £45 gross for other unlawful deductions from wages.
Mrs MacDonald was awarded a basic award of £9,456.30 and a compensatory award of £1,672.60 for unfair dismissal, together with £4,337.64 net notice pay as damages for breach of contract and £450.30 gross for accrued but untaken annual leave. Mrs Ross Wilson was awarded a basic award of £8,153.88 and a compensatory award of £8,211.18 for unfair dismissal, together with £3,870.24 net notice pay.
The protective award claims brought by Mrs Major and Mrs MacDonald were withdrawn at the hearing and dismissed. Mrs Ross Wilson's claim for unlawful deductions in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave was also withdrawn and dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Recoupment Regulations 1996 did not apply to the unfair dismissal awards, and the total compensation awarded was £53,199.34.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs A Major; the tribunal held she was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £7,500 and a compensatory award of £6,491.24. | Upheld | — | £13,991 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs R MacDonald; the tribunal held she was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £9,456.30 and a compensatory award of £1,672.60. | Upheld | — | £11,129 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs K Ross Wilson; the tribunal held she was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £8,153.88 and a compensatory award of £8,211.18. | Upheld | — | £16,365 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Mrs A Major; the tribunal held she was wrongfully dismissed without notice in breach of contract and awarded notice pay as damages of £2,781.96 net. | Upheld | — | £2,782 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Mrs R MacDonald; the tribunal held she was wrongfully dismissed without notice in breach of contract and awarded notice pay as damages of £4,337.64 net. | Upheld | — | £4,338 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Mrs K Ross Wilson; the tribunal held she was wrongfully dismissed without notice in breach of contract and awarded notice pay as damages of £3,870.24 net. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £53,199
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £25,110
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,375
- 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.