Case 8002028/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fawcett v Makar Marketing Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002028/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fawcett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 judgment issued on the available material because no response had been presented by the respondent, Makar Marketing Limited. The Employment Judge, J Hendry, ordered payment to Mr S Fawcett of a gross redundancy payment of £3,861.00, calculated as 9 weeks at 37.5 hours per week at £11.44 per hour.
The tribunal also found the respondent in breach of contract in respect of unpaid pension contributions and ordered damages of £482.59 for employer and employee contributions unpaid between December 2023 and August 2024. The judgment did not record any additional claims, and it did not identify any discrimination issues or separate compensation elements beyond the two monetary awards.
The judgment also stated that the respondent could deduct income tax and employee National Insurance contributions, if required by law, before making payment, and that payment of the net balance would satisfy the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Awarded as a gross redundancy payment of £3,861.00, calculated in the judgment as 9 weeks x 37.5 hours per week x £11.44 per hour. | Upheld | — | £3,861 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded for unpaid pension contributions, described as employer and employee contributions unpaid between December 2023 and August 2024. | Upheld | — | £483 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,344
- 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.