Case 2413308/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I O’Driscoll v Reel Appeal Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2413308/2020
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Mr A Gill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I O’Driscoll
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard claims by Mr I O'Driscoll against Reel Appeal Limited and unanimously rejected the protected disclosure detriment complaints. It found that the complaints of detrimental treatment on the grounds of making protected disclosures were not well founded, and it also rejected the complaint of detrimental treatment under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to health and safety.
The tribunal also rejected the automatic unfair dismissal claim based on making a protected disclosure. The only claim to succeed was the breach of contract complaint relating to termination without four weeks' notice, which was held to be well founded and resulted in damages of £2,953.39 being ordered, by consent.
Other monetary and contractual complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that the unlawful deduction from wages complaint for the period 9 June 2020 to 11 August 2020 was not well founded, and that the breach of contract complaint concerning employer pension contributions for the stated period was also not well founded.
The complaint about failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars compliant with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded. The judgment also records that the remaining complaints were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 detriment claim relating to health and safety; there is no dedicated taxonomy category so it is recorded as other. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal because of making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Termination without four weeks' notice; damages were awarded by consent. | Upheld | — | £2,953 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the period as '9 June 2022 11 August 2020' in the extracted text; recorded as printed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 1 ERA 1996; recorded as other because there is no dedicated taxonomy category. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,953
- 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.