Case 8002193/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Fitzpatrick v The Exchange Bar (EK) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002193/2024
- Decision date
- 27 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Fitzpatrick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and an Employment Judge issued judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge found that Mrs E Fitzpatrick had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and ordered The Exchange Bar (EK) Limited to pay damages of £1,716, calculated as 11 weeks' gross pay at £156 per week.
The judge also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. That award was assessed at £2,574, being 1.5 weeks' pay for each of the claimant's 11 years' service at a weekly rate of £156. No other claims, legal tests, or separate heads of loss were recorded in the judgment. The combined amount payable on the face of the judgment is £4,290.
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 £1,716, described as 11 weeks' gross pay at £156 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,716 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a redundancy payment of £2,574, described as 1.5 weeks' pay for each of the claimant's 11 years' service at £156 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,574 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,290
- 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.