Case 2500668/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A O’Neill v Mark Swatts Morse LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500668/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A O’Neill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Loy, sitting alone at Newcastle by CVP on 17 June 2024, found that the claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment was well founded and succeeded. The judgment records no disputed findings in the extracted text beyond the tribunal's conclusion on that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's claim for unpaid wages was well founded and succeeded. The remedy section states that the unpaid wages were calculated as 7 days at £65.00 gross per day, producing an award of £455.20 gross.
The total gross sum ordered was £3,740.20, made up of £3,285 for the statutory redundancy payment and £455.20 for unpaid wages. No other heads of remedy, legal tests, or additional issues are recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment was well founded and awarded £3,285 gross. | Upheld | — | £3,285 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claimant's claim for unpaid wages was well founded and awarded £455.20 gross, calculated as 7 days at £65.00 gross per day. | Upheld | — | £455 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,740
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.