This case involved a claim by the complainant that the name of her employer was not set out correctly in her contract of employment and that the details of her breaks were not set out properly. The complainant's solicitor submitted that it was her fundamental right to the entitlements under the Act, deriving from EU law. The respondent submitted that if there were any omissions in the complainant's contract of employment that they were minor or technical in nature and that they had no financial or work consequences for the complainant.

The Court agreed that the word "CD" had been omitted from the contract of employment and upheld that complaint. The Court also upheld in part the complaint that the contract of employment did not provide the timing of the break periods. The Court noted that no submission had been made nor any evidence produced by the Complainant to show that the acts/ omissions referred to had any significance for her or caused her any detriment. In addition, they noted that no evidence was produced to suggest the Complainant had raised any grievance or concerns about these matters during her employment.

The Court held that the breaches were merely technical and without substance. The Court found that the alleged contraventions had no practical impact on the Complainant during her employment and noted the Court's extensive consideration of such instances in Patrick Hall v Irish Water. The Court adopted this reasoning in the instant case and determined that despite the mere technical breaches by the respondent company the amount of compensation which was just and equitable in the circumstances was nil.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/October/TED1812.html