Case 8002033/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kierney v Resolve Phb Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002033/2025
- Decision date
- 2 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Kierney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because no response had been presented to the claim. On the available material, the Employment Judge found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages in the net sum of £6,912, calculated by reference to 12 weeks at £576.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The award made under that head was £17,850, calculated as 25.5 weeks at the capped rate of £700.
In addition, the tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,880 gross, calculated as 20 days at £144 per day. The total monetary award was therefore £27,642.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded in the net sum of £6,912, calculated as 12 weeks at £576. | Upheld | — | £6,912 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded in the sum of £17,850, calculated as 25.5 weeks at the capped rate of £700. | Upheld | — | £17,850 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday entitlement awarded in the gross sum of £2,880, calculated as 20 days at £144 per day. | Upheld | — | £2,880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,642
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,912
- 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.