Case 2413610/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ryan Gilroy v Funky Owl (DAK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413610/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ryan Gilroy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal claim, and the Tribunal dismissed that claim on withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claims for an unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract for notice pay, accrued untaken annual leave, and failure to provide a written statement of main terms of employment were well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay £46 for 7.5 hours' pay, £107 for one week's gross notice pay, £277 for 2.7 weeks' holiday pay, and £428 for the written-statement failure.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction claim relating to hours worked in the week commencing 5 May 2019; award represented 7.5 hours' pay. | Upheld | — | £46 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice on dismissal; award represented one week's gross pay. | Upheld | — | £107 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued untaken annual leave at termination; award represented 2.7 weeks' holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Other | Claim that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of main terms of employment in compliance with Part I of the Employment Rights Act 1996; award represented four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £428 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £858
- 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.