Case 8002007/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v FFDR Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002007/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr B Smith's claim for unfair dismissal against FFDR Limited. It ordered the respondent to pay £14,022, consisting of a basic award of £2,862 and a compensatory award of £11,160. The judgment also states that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the compensatory award, with a prescribed element of £11,160 covering the period from 6 September 2024 to 21 February 2025.
The tribunal further found that the claimant did not receive a written statement of reasons for dismissal in accordance with section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For that failure, it ordered the respondent to pay 2 weeks' gross wages, amounting to £1,272. Oral reasons were given at the hearing under Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and the judgment notes that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was successful and ordered compensation of £14,022, made up of a basic award of £2,862 and a compensatory award of £11,160. | Upheld | — | £14,022 |
| Other | The tribunal found the claimant did not receive a written statement of reasons for dismissal under section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of 2 weeks' gross wages, £1,272. | Upheld | — | £1,272 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,294
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,862
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,160
- 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.