Case 1403235/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hamish Morton v The Godolphin School — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403235/2022
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Representation
- Venue
- Southampton via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hamish Morton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hamish Morton brought claims against The Godolphin School heard at Southampton via CVP on 10, 11 and 12 July 2023 before Employment Judge Hay. The judgment records that the claimant advanced a claim of constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a claim for wrongful dismissal in breach of contract.
The tribunal dismissed both claims. No separate liability reasoning is set out in the written record because the reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment is limited to the formal outcome.
No monetary award is recorded. The judgment also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records a claim for constructive unfair dismissal pursuant to s95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996, which was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records a wrongful dismissal claim in breach of contract, which was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s95(1)(c) ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.