Case 2417709/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Donoghue v Vale UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417709/2020
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Donoghue
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Liverpool hearing on 22 November 2021, Employment Judge Horne held that Mr Donoghue was not constructively dismissed. On that basis, his unfair dismissal complaint and his claim for damages for breach of contract, described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal, both failed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and therefore only the outcome is recorded in the text provided.
The tribunal separately found that Mr Donoghue breached his contract of employment with Vale UK Limited by failing to give notice of termination. The respondent's contract claim was therefore well founded, and Mr Donoghue was ordered to pay damages of £958.40. The notice appended to the judgment explains that statutory interest may apply if the sum is not paid within 14 days, but no separate interest amount is stated in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal expressly found that Mr Donoghue was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint failed because the tribunal found there was no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant's claim for damages for breach of contract was described by the tribunal as a wrongful dismissal claim and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that Mr Donoghue breached his contract of employment with Vale UK Limited by failing to give notice of termination, and ordered damages of £958.40. | Upheld | — | £958 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £958
- 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.