Case 8002882/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Okan v Global Edge Consultant UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002882/2025
- Decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles Sami
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Okan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against Global Edge Consultant UK Ltd. The respondent did not enter a response after the claim form was sent to it on 01 December 2025, and the Employment Judge decided that the claim could properly be determined on the available material without a hearing on liability.
On that material, the Employment Judge held that the complaint of unfair dismissal should succeed. The judgment records only that conclusion on liability and does not set out any contested factual findings or reasons beyond the decision that determination could be made without a hearing.
Remedy was also determined on the papers. The respondent was ordered to pay a compensatory award of £27,130.62, made up of past loss of wages of £21,250, future loss of wages of £5,000, and pension loss of £880.62. No basic award was made because the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment from the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. It awarded a compensatory award of £27,130.62, comprising past loss of wages of £21,250, future loss of wages of £5,000, and pension loss of £880.62. No basic award was made because the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment from the respondent. | Upheld | — | £27,131 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,131
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £27,131
- 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.