Case 8000123/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000123/2026 D Lime v QMK Management Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000123/2026
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eccles Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000123/2026 D Lime
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a response within 28 days of the claim form being sent on 16 January 2026, contrary to rule 17 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Employment Judge Eccles, sitting in Scotland, determined under Rule 22 that liability could properly be determined on the available material without a hearing.
The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. The Judge determined remedy as a basic award of £2,626.00 (4 weeks at £656.50 weekly wage) and a compensatory award of £6,546.00 for past loss of earnings (12 weeks at £545.50 net weekly wage).
No other remedy components were addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 22 default judgment. Basic award £2,626.00 (4 weeks x £656.50) and compensatory award £6,546.00 (12 weeks x £545.50 net weekly wage past loss). | Upheld | — | £9,172 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,172
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,626
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,546
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 17 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.