Case 1406386/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Roberts v Durkan Cahill Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406386/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Durkan Cahill Limited breached Mr C Roberts’s contract of employment in relation to notice entitlement, but it recorded that he suffered no loss from that breach. The judgment also found that the respondent failed to provide terms and conditions of employment compliant with s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,152 for the failure to provide compliant terms and conditions. The judgment does not split that sum into separate heads of loss, and it records no award for the notice breach because no loss was suffered.
Mr Roberts’s unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant’s contract of employment in respect of notice entitlement, but recorded that the claimant suffered no loss as a consequence. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide terms and conditions of employment compliant with s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered payment of £2,152. | Upheld | — | £2,152 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,152
- 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.