Case 1804768/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hanif Hafejee v Vision Care Services Limited This was a remote hearing, by cloud video platform (V): A hearing in person was not practicable because of the restrictions due to Covid and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804768/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hanif Hafejee worked for CMCL from 9 September 2013 and was transferred to Vision Care Services Limited on 16 December 2019 under TUPE. The tribunal accepted that he had more than two years' continuous employment. It also accepted that he had been employed by CMCL throughout that period and rejected the respondent's case that the employment documents were false or forged.
The tribunal found that the respondent laid him off on 23 March 2020, although his contract contained no lay-off provision. It found that the respondent then failed to give timely clarification about his position, did not respond properly to repeated requests, and refused to allow him to return to work, including as a carer. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not provide him with care work even though shifts were available, and inferred that his higher rate of pay was a factor in that decision.
When Mr Hafejee raised a formal grievance on 21 May 2020, the respondent's first reply was a holding response, but the follow-up email on 22 May 2020 summarily rejected his complaints as false and untrue. The tribunal held that this was incompatible with the ACAS Code and, taken with the earlier lay-off, lack of response, and failure to restore him to work, amounted to conduct that destroyed trust and confidence. It found that he resigned on 1 June 2020 in response to that fundamental breach and was therefore constructively dismissed and unfairly dismissed. It did not find that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the TUPE transfer.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,228, a compensatory award of £14,842.97, and a 20% ACAS uplift of £2,968.59, making a total award of £21,039.56. It also noted that the recoupment provisions applied. Separately, it made a costs order requiring the respondent to pay 50% of the claimant's legal fees, assessed at £3,681.92.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Mr Hafejee was constructively dismissed when he resigned in response to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also rejected the alternative case that the dismissal was automatically unfair under regulation 7 of TUPE. | Upheld | — | £21,040 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,040
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,228
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,843
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- constructive dismissal test (Western Excavating, Buckland)
- implied term of trust and confidence (Malik)
- series of acts / last straw (Lewis, Omilaju, Kaur)
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- regulation 7 TUPE
- section 207A TULRCA 1992 / ACAS Code uplift
- Rule 76 costs jurisdiction
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.