Case 2216011/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wall v Worldwide Currencies Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216011/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, who had been employed since 2009, was promoted to Desk Manager in October 2022 on a new job description, increased salary and bonus terms. It held that this was a contractual variation and that the respondent and the claimant both treated the role as a promotion. In July 2023 the respondent decided to revert to the earlier structure, remove the Desk Manager role and place the claimant back into his previous Senior FX Consultant role.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's strike-out application based on alleged witness intimidation. It found no evidence that the claimant's February 2024 contact with former colleagues changed who would give evidence or made a fair hearing impossible. On the facts it accepted, the claimant's conduct was regrettable but not such that it was proportionate to strike out the claim.
On liability, the tribunal held that the removal of the Desk Manager role without the claimant's agreement or any real consultation was a unilateral contractual change. It concluded that the change was significant enough to amount to a 'Hogg v Dover' dismissal because the claimant's Desk Manager contract was effectively withdrawn and inferior terms were imposed. It also held, in the alternative, that the same conduct was a repudiatory breach of contract and of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and that the claimant resigned in response on 28 July 2023, so he would have been constructively dismissed in any event.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £8,359 and a compensatory award of £52,834.80, made up of 24 weeks' net pay of £51,584.88 and pension loss of £1,249.92. It made a separate award of £800 for loss of statutory rights, bringing the total award to £61,993.80. It made no reduction for contributory conduct or mitigation, finding that the respondent had enforced restrictive covenants and made data-breach allegations, and that the claimant's later back injury and the surrounding circumstances did not make the delay in finding new work unreasonable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application. It found that the claimant's Desk Manager role had been contractually varied in October 2022, that the July 2023 restructure removed that role without his agreement or consultation, and that this amounted to a 'Hogg v Dover' dismissal. In the alternative, it held that the claimant would have been constructively dismissed when he resigned on 28 July 2023 in response to the unilateral demotion. | Upheld | — | £61,994 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £61,994
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,359
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £52,835
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- Simmonds v Dowty Deals Ltd
- Hepworth Heating Ltd v Akers
- Arnold v Britton
- Hogg v Dover dismissal
- Bampouras before-and-after comparison
- Western Excavating constructive dismissal
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- Quilter v Falconer
- Nelson v BBC
- Gardiner-Hill mitigation questions
- Cooper Contracting mitigation burden
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) 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.