Case 2401611/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O’Hare v Giggle PR Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401611/2022
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss O’Hare
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the claim under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment was therefore made on the papers without a full contested hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,138.50 gross, being 50 days at £69.23 per day, less £1,323.00 already received.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered damages of £1,384.60 gross, calculated as 20 days at £69.23 per day.
The judgment states that the figures were calculated using gross pay and that the respondent may account for tax and other statutory deductions where necessary before payment. A separate notice explains the tribunal's interest arrangements, but the judgment itself does not quantify any interest award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of a gross sum of £2,138.50, calculated as 50 x £69.23 per day (£3,461.50) less £1,323.00 already received. | Upheld | — | £2,139 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered gross damages of £1,384.60, calculated as 20 days x £69.23 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,523
- 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.