Case 2207002/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fernandes v Capita Business Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207002/2020
- Decision date
- 15 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fernandes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed as a Managing Principal from 6 January 2020 until dismissal for redundancy on 21 August 2020. He was given notice on 23 July 2020, worked four weeks of a three-month notice period, and was then paid the remaining nine weeks in lieu under a PILON clause. At the preliminary hearing he withdrew his unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims after accepting he did not have two years' continuous employment for those claims.
The tribunal considered the Respondent's strike-out application against the breach of contract claim. It found the Claimant had an arguable case that his contract had been varied, or that a collateral agreement was made, at a meeting on 16 July 2020 allowing him to work out all of his notice. Because that issue required evidence about the meeting, subsequent events, and the legal effect of the signed document, the tribunal held that the liability argument had a reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal allowed to proceed the breach of contract heads concerning alleged lost contractual holiday pay, car allowance, employer pension contributions, and loss of opportunity to secure an alternative role with the Respondent during the notice period. It struck out the heads concerning loss of a mortgage offer and the alleged effect of being perceived as unemployed, finding no reasonable prospect of establishing recoverable loss flowing from the alleged breach. It also dismissed the stress and anxiety claim because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a contract claim for personal injury damages.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed on withdrawal after the Claimant accepted he did not have two years' continuous employment for the unfair dismissal claim presented. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim was dismissed on withdrawal after the Claimant accepted he did not have two years' continuous employment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The heads of claim for compensation for loss of a mortgage offer during the notice period and for compensation for the perception of being unemployed in other job applications during the notice period were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for personal injury arising from an alleged breach of contract, described as stress and anxiety, and dismissed that part of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The remaining breach of contract claim was not finally determined at this preliminary hearing and was listed for a later hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Hasan v Tesco Stores two-stage test
- E D & F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel
- Lockey v East North East Homes Leeds
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.