Case 1402150/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Tweedale v Tithe Barn Club (Aldwick) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402150/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Southampton - VHS
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Tweedale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Tweedale, who had worked for the Respondent since 1 October 1995, was summarily dismissed on 27 April 2022 after more than 26 years' service. He had also raised a refund-of-rent point and an alleged promise of a 'retirement pot'; the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction over the rent point and saw no evidence of a binding contract for the retirement pot, so those matters were not dealt with further.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had not shown that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct. It found that the real reason was Mr Raymond Downs' wish to start afresh after Phillip Downs' association with the business had ended. Even if the dismissal letter's reasons were treated as conduct reasons, only the Dos Santos letting issue could properly amount to misconduct; the other alleged matters were not made out on the evidence. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent had not carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, because there was no prior disciplinary process and no proper investigatory meeting with Mr Tweedale before dismissal.
The Tribunal therefore upheld unfair dismissal, applied a 25% reduction for contributory conduct under ss.122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996, and applied a 25% uplift under s.207A TULRCA because the ACAS Code had not been followed. It held that the dismissal was also wrongful dismissal because the Dos Santos issue did not amount to a repudiatory breach in context, particularly as Mr Tweedale had consulted Phillip Downs and believed he was acting in the Company's interests. Holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations was upheld by consent at £942 gross. The unfair dismissal award was recorded as a basic award of £11,991 and a compensatory award of £33,020, and the judgment recorded a total monetary award of £51,785, a prescribed element of £11,236, and an amount by which the award exceeded the prescribed element of £40,549.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the principal reason was Mr Raymond Downs' wish to start afresh after Phillip Downs had left, not a conduct reason for Mr Tweedale. In the alternative, only the Dos Santos letting issue could amount to misconduct, but the investigation and process were still inadequate. The basic award and compensatory award were each reduced by 25% for contributory conduct, and the award was then uplifted by 25% under s.207A TULRCA before being capped. | Upheld | — | £45,011 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal held that Mr Tweedale's conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract. The Dos Santos issue was not enough in context, particularly because he had consulted Phillip Downs and believed he was acting in the Company's interests. | Upheld | — | £5,832 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay under regulation 30(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, reflecting an amount due under regulation 14(2), was upheld by consent. The order was for £942 gross, subject to any lawful deductions shown to be due. | Upheld | — | £942 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction over the refund-of-rent point and saw no evidence of any binding contract for the alleged 'retirement pot' outside NEST contributions. Those matters were not dealt with further in the judgment. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £51,785
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £11,991
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £33,020
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- reasonable suspicion amounting to a belief
- band of reasonable responses
- as much investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
- W Devis & Sons Limited v Atkins [1977] ICR 662
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.