Case 2201449/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R DAWSON v Turner & Townsend Contract Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201449/2019
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R DAWSON
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, heard the case by remote video on 15, 18 and 19 January 2021. It held that Mr R Dawson resigned and was not dismissed by Turner & Townsend Contract Services Limited for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, Mr Dawson's unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. The written record states that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably in bringing the proceedings and ordered him to pay the respondent £15,000 in respect of the costs incurred in defending the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £15,000 in costs. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.95(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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.