Case 3311643/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D O’Regan v Creative Media Skills Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311643/2020
- Decision date
- 11 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D O’Regan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim. It found that Mr D O'Regan was not wrongfully dismissed because he served his contractual notice period of one month.
The tribunal upheld two money claims. It found that Creative Media Skills Ltd had made an unlawful deduction from wages in the net sum of £5,064.23, and that it had failed to pay annual leave accrued but untaken at the termination of employment in the net sum of £1,947.33.
The written record states that the reasons for the judgment had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No further findings or legal tests are set out in the written judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed because he served his contractual notice period of one month. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from wages in the net sum of £5,064.23. | Upheld | — | £5,064 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the respondent failed to pay annual leave accrued but untaken at termination in the net sum of £1,947.33. | Upheld | — | £1,947 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,012
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,012
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.