Case 2402134/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E O’Connor v Unique Training Group Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402134/2023
- Decision date
- 21 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E O’Connor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool by video hearing on 27 July 2023 before Employment Judge Buzzard sitting alone. Miss E O'Connor appeared in person and the respondent did not appear. The tribunal recorded that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and the written record was sent to the parties on 21 August 2023.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim for notice pay was well founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £807.65 within 28 days, representing one week's gross notice pay.
The tribunal also found that there had been an unlawful deduction from wages for November and December 2022. It ordered payment of £3,364.82, made up of £2,574.91 gross pay for December 2022 and £789.91 gross pay for part of November 2022.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring such a claim. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £4,172.47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay succeeded; the tribunal awarded one week's gross notice pay. | Upheld | — | £808 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages for November and December 2022 succeeded; the award comprised £2,574.91 for December 2022 and £789.91 for part of November 2022. | Upheld | — | £3,365 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,172
- 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.