Case 1803519/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wardell v Dryfix Preservation Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803519/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wardell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Wardell was employed by Dryfix Preservation Ltd from 1 March 2017 until 2 April 2019, working as a remedial technician. The tribunal found that the respondent had agreed to provide training and support for him to obtain a domestic plumbing qualification, that the respondent arranged for him to gain experience with a local plumbing contractor, Paul Walker, and that this led the claimant to say he was most likely going to resign. It accepted that on 2 April 2019 the claimant sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Russell Rafton saying, among other things, that his decision was definitely made.
The tribunal found that at a meeting on 3 April 2019 the claimant verbally advised Mr Russell Rafton that he would terminate his employment, but that the employment had in fact already ended on 2 April 2019. On that basis it held that the claimant was not dismissed, but resigned, and so there could be no unfair dismissal. Because he resigned, the tribunal held that he should have given notice under his own contract, not the respondent, and it dismissed the notice pay claim.
The tribunal noted that a written warning issued on 8 December 2018 was not relevant to its decision. It dismissed by consent the respondent's claims for £900 training costs and £168.63 uniform charges, and it dismissed by consent the claimant's bonus claim. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £160 in wages and £78.60 in holiday pay, giving a total monetary figure of £238.60.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant resigned on 2 April 2019, so there was no dismissal and therefore no unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's claim for £900 training costs; dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's claim for £168.63 uniform charges; dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice-pay claim. The tribunal found the claimant resigned and so should have given notice under his contract rather than the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the respondent was to pay £160 in wages to the claimant. | Settled | — | £160 |
| Other | Claim for bonus dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent was to pay £78.60 in holiday pay to the claimant. | Settled | — | £79 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £239
- across all upheld claims
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.