Case 1800478/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. O’Loughlin v GB Vape Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800478/2021
- Decision date
- 26 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. O’Loughlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Leeds on 26 March 2021 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith. The claimant, Mr C. O’Loughlin, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal proceeded on the basis of the remote hearing arrangements noted in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded. It ordered GB Vape Ltd to pay £289.39 forthwith. The judgment does not set out further reasoning beyond that finding.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s complaint of non-payment of holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. It ordered GB Vape Ltd to pay £1,146.23 forthwith. The total sum awarded across both upheld claims was £1,435.62.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal stated that the complaint of unlawful deduction was well founded and ordered payment forthwith of £289.39. | Upheld | — | £289 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal stated that the complaint of non-payment of holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded and ordered payment forthwith of £1,146.23. | Upheld | — | £1,146 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,436
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 30 of The Working Time Regulations 1998
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.