Case 2413183/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A O’Toole v Teleperformance Limited HELD AT: Liverpool (by CVP, remote) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2413183/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A O’Toole
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A O’Toole worked for Teleperformance Limited from 1 April 2023 to 27 September 2023 as a call advisor and resigned with notice. In her claim form, presented on 18 December 2023 after early conciliation, she said she was owed more than 77 hours of holiday pay.
The Tribunal made case management orders requiring the claimant to provide a calculation of the amount claimed, supporting documents and evidence, and later varied those orders because she had not complied with disclosure and witness evidence requirements. A strike out warning was then issued under Rule 38, but the claimant did not respond by the deadline and did not attend the final hearing. The Tribunal also recorded that she had not corresponded with the Tribunal since presenting the claim.
The respondent’s accepted response was that any outstanding holiday pay had already been paid when employment ended, but the Tribunal did not determine the substantive holiday pay dispute. The claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with a Tribunal order and under Rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim was described by the claimant as unpaid holiday pay. It was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.