Case 1600979/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Simon Cocking v BFS Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600979/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Brady Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Simon Cocking
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSimon Cocking was employed by BFS Group Limited as General Manager of its Chepstow depot from 19 June 2023 until his dismissal on 31 December 2023. The dispute concerned his probationary status, the contractual notice provisions, and whether he had been paid enough in lieu of notice. The tribunal recorded that his performance reviews became more concerning from week 15 onwards, and that Mr Dow also had concerns about attendance on site, evening calls, a possible confidentiality issue, and reported staff concerns.
The tribunal accepted that the probation meeting took place on 18 December 2023 and that Mr Cocking was told he had not passed probation and that his employment would end. It found that, under the contract, because he had not been told that he had successfully completed probation, he remained within the probationary notice provision in clause 13. On that basis he was entitled to one week’s notice, but the respondent actually paid him three weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
The tribunal rejected the argument that the respondent acted in bad faith or capriciously in deciding not to pass probation. It accepted Mr Dow’s evidence that he wanted the appointment to succeed and had genuine concerns about performance. The tribunal also noted that this was not an unfair dismissal claim, so it did not need to consider the band of reasonableness. Both the breach of contract claim and the unauthorised deduction from wages claim were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant said he was wrongfully dismissed because he was not paid sufficient payment in lieu of notice. The tribunal treated the issue as a contractual notice claim and held that only one week's notice was due during probation, while the respondent had in fact paid three weeks' PILON. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the evidence related to notice pay only and that there was no evidence about holiday pay. It held that no further payment in lieu of notice was properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd 2015 UKSC 17
- Geyes v Societe Generale, London Branch [2013] ICR 117SC
- Manor House Healthcare v Hayes and anor EAT 1196/99
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.