Case 3307051/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L O’Malley v Tenpin Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307051/2020
- Decision date
- 24 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L O’Malley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a costs judgment, not a merits decision on the underlying employment claims. The tribunal recorded that it was making a costs order within rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and that it had power to do so under rule 76(1)(a).
Employment Judge Horne ordered Mr L O’Malley to pay Tenpin Ltd £100.00. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing on 18 January 2022 and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties.
No findings are set out in the written judgment about the underlying breach of contract, disability discrimination, or unfair dismissal matters listed on the case record, and no separate merits remedy is recorded in the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment records a costs order under rule 74 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal said it had the power to make a costs order under rule 76(1)(a) and ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £100.00. | Upheld | — | £100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 74 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 76(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.