Case 1400308/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Woodward of Scott-Moncrieff & Associates For the v Mr. Parsons of Make UK — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400308/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Woodward of Scott-Moncrieff & Associates For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDr Paul Martin brought unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims against Babcock Land Ltd. The tribunal, sitting by VHS before Judge Guy Davies on 21 and 22 September 2022, dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it found the dismissal was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract claim for notice pay. It found on the balance of probabilities that there had been wilful conduct by the employee amounting to a repudiatory breach of the employment contract, which allowed the employer to accept that breach and dismiss summarily. On that basis, the claimant was not entitled to contractual notice.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for failure to give proper notice. The tribunal found wilful conduct by the employee amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract, so the employer was entitled to accept that breach and summarily dismiss without contractual notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.