Case 3300081/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Tyler v Mr Paul Orkin — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300081/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Overton Date
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Tyler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely at Watford on 21 November 2022 before Employment Judge Overton, dealt with claims brought by Ms B Tyler against Mr Paul Orkin. The respondent appeared in person. The judgment record states that the hearing was conducted by video and that the tribunal did not hold a face-to-face hearing because the relevant matters could be determined remotely.
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It also found that the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. In addition, it found that the claimant's claim for holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded and succeeded. The extract does not set out the tribunal's substantive reasons beyond those formal outcomes.
No monetary award is recorded in the extract, and no separate remedy figures are stated for any of the successful claims. The record also notes that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so this extract contains only the dispositive findings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim was pleaded under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
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.