Case 1405905/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person, Assisted by Mr Churchill For the v Mr W Kitchen, Director, Assisted by Mrs E Harding — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405905/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person, Assisted by Mr Churchill For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Jon Bryan, had worked for the respondent since 1994 and was manager at its Barnstaple depot. The respondent decided to close the Barnstaple branch in 2020, offered the claimant alternative work based in Exeter, and then exchanged a series of letters with him after he repeatedly asked for confirmation that the situation was being handled as a redundancy and for clarification of what consultation and redundancy rights applied. The tribunal found that at no stage did the respondent confirm that his role was redundant or that a formal redundancy consultation had commenced, and that this left the claimant without the information he said he needed to assess the offer of alternative work.
The tribunal held that the respondent’s repeated failure to answer those requests amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Although the respondent had some legitimate commercial reasons for trying to preserve employment and did later make an offer that the claimant accepted would have been a reasonable alternative, that offer came after the claimant had already resigned on 18 August 2020. The tribunal found that the resignation was in response to the breach, so it was a constructive dismissal, and that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent had not acted reasonably in the circumstances or within the range of reasonable responses.
On remedy, the tribunal calculated a basic award of £9,343.47 by reference to the claimant’s age, length of service and weekly pay, and a compensatory award of £1,488.33 for the one month before he obtained new employment. Total compensation for unfair dismissal was therefore £10,831.80. The tribunal declined to apply any uplift under s.207A(2) and declined any reduction on the respondent’s cross-argument, and it held that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply. The notice-period claim succeeded but attracted no further sum, and accrued holiday pay was agreed by consent at £230.67.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal found on 18 August 2020; compensation comprised a basic award of £9,343.47 and a compensatory award of £1,488.33. | Upheld | — | £10,832 |
| Breach of contract | The notice-period claim succeeded, but the tribunal awarded no further compensation because the loss was already covered in the compensatory award and otherwise mitigated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay was agreed by consent at the difference between furlough-rate payment and full pay. | Upheld | — | £231 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,062
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,343
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,488
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Tullett Prebon PLC v BGC Brokers LP
- s.207A(2) TULRCA 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1
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.