Case 8000904/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000904/2024 D Black v JKLM Contracts Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000904/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000904/2024 D Black
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment on the available material because no response had been presented by the respondent. Employment Judge M Whitcombe determined that the claimant, D Black, had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,050, representing 5 weeks' gross pay at £610 per week.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,575, calculated as 7.5 weeks' pay at the same weekly rate of £610. The listed hearing on 4 September 2024 was cancelled.
The judgment does not record any discrimination issues, legal tests, or separate remedy breakdown beyond the two sums awarded. The total financial award recorded from the judgment is £7,625.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,050, stated as 5 weeks' gross pay at £610 per week. | Upheld | — | £3,050 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,575, stated as 7.5 weeks' pay at £610 per week. | Upheld | — | £4,575 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,625
- 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.