Case 2402708/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D O’Mara v CareTech Community Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402708/2021
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr A Murphy, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D O’Mara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr O'Mara was unfairly dismissed. The judgment states that his unfair dismissal claim succeeded pursuant to section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal dismissed the separate claim that he had been subjected to a detriment pursuant to section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that he was dismissed in breach of contract because he was not provided with his contractual notice period.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further factual findings, remedy figures, or a monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded pursuant to section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment pursuant to section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996; the locked taxonomy has no specific health and safety detriment category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract by not being provided with his contractual notice period. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.