Case 2403602/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D O’Hare v Ambulance Training & Staffing Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2403602/2020
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D O’Hare
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at Liverpool on 17 August 2021 before Employment Judge Robinson. The claimant, Mr D O’Hare, appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaint about unpaid accrued holiday pay on termination was well-founded.
The tribunal also found the claimant’s complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded in respect of wages unpaid to him. It quantified the holiday pay due at £751.09 and the unpaid wages at £425.09.
The total sum due was therefore £1,176.18, payable by the respondent forthwith. The written notice appended to the decision also explained that unpaid sums could attract interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 if not paid within 14 days, at the stipulated rate of 8%, but no separate interest sum was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Complaint that accrued holiday pay was not paid on termination; the tribunal found it well-founded and awarded £751.09. | Upheld | — | £751 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning unpaid wages; the tribunal found it well-founded and awarded £425.09. | Upheld | — | £425 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,176
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.23 ERA 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.