Case 1301565/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Priest v Car Perfection Carcare Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301565/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Priest
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Priest worked for Car Perfection Carcare Ltd from 1 September 2016 as a car body repairer. The tribunal found there had been intermittent problems with the workplace toilet facilities from January 2020. In January 2021 Mr Priest complained that the toilet would not flush and there was no water, and after returning from sick leave on 17 February 2021 he found the toilet still not working. He then raised the matter with the Health and Safety Executive and Wolverhampton City Council.
The Council visited on 18 February 2021. Later that day Mr Edge called Mr Priest and another employee into a meeting, told them to switch off their phones, and asked about the complaint. The main dispute was whether Mr Priest resigned or was dismissed. The tribunal preferred Mr Priest's evidence, found that Mr and Mrs Edge were raising their voices and were confrontational, and accepted that Mr Edge told Mr Priest he was sacked because he had reported the poor toilet facilities.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that Mr Priest had walked out and resigned. It noted the lack of any immediate follow-up contact, and the later letter of 22 February 2021 asking whether he intended to return and describing him as absent without authorisation. It held that Mr Priest had raised genuine health and safety concerns with both his employer and the relevant authorities, and that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s100 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim succeeded and a remedy hearing was to be listed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the complaint as automatically unfair dismissal under s100 Employment Rights Act 1996. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was left for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100 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.