Case 1310792/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H McCarthy v ETAK Design and Print Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310792/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V. Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H McCarthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr H McCarthy had been dismissed without notice and that this was a breach of contract. It awarded him damages of £124.50, described in the judgment as one week's pay.
The tribunal also found that, by virtue of regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the claimant was entitled to compensation in lieu of annual leave accrued but untaken at the termination of his employment. It awarded £174.30, described as 1.4 weeks' pay.
The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed. The total payable by the respondent to the claimant was £298.80.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice, in breach of contract, and awarded damages of £124.50, described as one week's pay. | Upheld | — | £125 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled under regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 to compensation in lieu of annual leave accrued but untaken at termination, and awarded £174.30, described as 1.4 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £174 |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed; the judgment does not specify the legal basis of the counterclaim in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £299
- 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.