Case 8000727/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal upholds unfair-dismissal and breach-of-contract claims against Scott Rogers Joinery (in liquidation)
An employment tribunal has upheld unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims against Scott Rogers Joinery (in liquidation). The tribunal recorded a total award of £3,524.
- Case reference
- 8000727/2024
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000727/2024 Mr J Robb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a rule 21 judgment because no response had been presented to the claim and the Employment Judge determined the case on the available material. On that basis, the tribunal found that Scott Rogers Joinery (in liquidation) had unfairly dismissed Mr J Robb and ordered compensation of £2,900 net for that claim.
The tribunal also found that Mr Robb was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £624 gross. The judgment does not set out any further reasoning, does not allocate the awards by component beyond those two sums, and does not record any separate remedy elements such as a basic award, interest, or injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Decided under rule 21 on the available material because no response was presented. | Upheld | — | £2,900 |
| Breach of contract | Found to be in respect of notice; damages awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,524
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,900
- 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.