Case 1403856/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Ohara v Penam Pubs Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403856/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Ohara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss S Ohara had been dismissed without notice and ordered Penam Pubs Limited to pay £1,529 gross, calculated as 11 weeks' pay at £139 per week. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,251, based on 11 years' continuous service and an average weekly pay of £139. It also awarded a compensatory award of £12,932.10, made up of past and future loss of earnings, £304 for loss of statutory rights, a deduction of £1,529 for notice pay, and a 10% ACAS uplift.
The tribunal further ordered £556 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had not provided a section 1 statement of terms and conditions. Applying the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, the tribunal recorded a prescribed element of £7,762 for the period 17 May 2021 to 7 July 2022 and an excess of £7,950.10, and stated that the total monetary award was £15,712.10.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered £1,529 gross for 11 weeks' pay at £139 per week after dismissal without notice. | Upheld | — | £1,529 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,251 and a compensatory award of £12,932.10; it also made a separate £556 section 38 award for failure to provide a section 1 statement of terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £14,183 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,712
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,251
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,932
- 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.