Case 3303698/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Miss O Job 2. Mr A Flynn 3. Mr A Georgiou 4. Mrs I Didkovska 5. Mrs J Decaro v Theobalds Park Op Co Limited (in administration) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303698/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Connolly Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1. Miss O Job 2. Mr A Flynn 3. Mr A Georgiou 4. Mrs I Didkovska 5. Mrs J Decaro
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that each of the five claimants was an employee of the first respondent, Theobalds Park Op Co Limited (in administration), within the meaning of s.230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or alternatively a worker within s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. The first respondent did not attend the hearing and each claimant appeared in person before Employment Judge J Connolly at Watford on 22 and 23 May 2025.
Each complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of the period 16 October 2023 to 19 November 2023 was well-founded, and the first respondent was ordered to pay the gross sums deducted to each claimant. Holiday pay complaints under regulations 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were well-founded in respect of Miss Job, Mr Georgiou and Mrs Decaro. Breach of contract claims for one week's notice pay were well-founded in respect of Miss Job and Mr Georgiou, calculated on gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay.
Mrs Didkovska's complaint that the first respondent had failed to pay her a redundancy payment was struck out on the ground that she accepted she had not been employed for two years or more prior to termination, as required by s.155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons would only be provided on request.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Each of the five claimants' complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages against the first respondent (Theobalds Park Op Co Limited, in administration) for the period 16 October 2023 to 19 November 2023 was well-founded. Sums awarded: Miss Job 2782.54, Mr Flynn 1931.52, Mr Georgiou 1206.00, Mrs Didkovska 2028.65, Mrs Decaro 2337.11 (gross). | Upheld | — | £10,286 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaints under regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 well-founded for three claimants: Miss Job 1298.82, Mr Georgiou 1122.40, Mrs Decaro 422.79. | Upheld | — | £2,844 |
| Working time regulations | The holiday pay findings were made under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1)); award is captured in the holiday_pay claim entry and not separately quantified. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claims in relation to notice pay well-founded for two claimants: Miss Job 497.45 and Mr Georgiou 367.50, calculated on gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay tax treatment, for failure to give one week's notice of termination. | Upheld | — | £865 |
| Redundancy | Mrs Didkovska's redundancy payment complaint was struck out on the basis that she accepted she had not been employed for two years or more prior to termination, as required by s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,995
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.