Case 2302196/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ford v The Board of Governors of Sherwood Park School — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302196/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard claims arising from Mr Ford's employment at Sherwood Park School and his resignation on 3 September 2023. Employment Judge Baran, sitting alone at Croydon by CVP between 6 and 10 October 2025, dealt with liability only on the agreed list of issues, having identified that an outstanding breach of contract claim from the second ET1 needed to be adjourned to a further hearing. The holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed on withdrawal after Mr Ford confirmed he did not pursue it.
The Tribunal found that over a period of around 10 to 11 months the School did not administer Mr Ford's pay correctly, and that the School's handling of his pay complaints and grievance amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in his contract of employment. The Judge concluded that Mr Ford resigned in response to those breaches and, in the alternative, in response to a final straw of the School's failure to progress his complaint as a formal grievance between June and September 2023. The School did not advance a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s98 ERA 1996, and the claim of ordinary constructive unfair dismissal contrary to s94 was upheld.
The Tribunal rejected the claims that the protected disclosures Mr Ford made were the reason for his treatment or dismissal: the s47B detriment claim and the s103A automatic unfair dismissal claim were both found not well-founded and dismissed. The Part II ERA 1996 unauthorised deductions from wages claim for the period June 2022 – September 2023 was also dismissed. Remedy for the upheld constructive unfair dismissal claim was adjourned to a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim identified at this hearing was adjourned to a further hearing and was not adjudicated in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | s47B ERA 1996 detriment for protected disclosure claim found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | s103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | s94 ERA 1996 ordinary constructive unfair dismissal upheld. Liability only determined at this hearing; remedy adjourned to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from pay (Part II ERA 1996) for the period June 2022 – September 2023 found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 14(2)/16(1) holiday pay claim dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 (s13/23)
- Working Time Regulations 1998 (reg 14(2)/16(1))
- Jones v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance [2004] IRLR 218
- Porter v Magill [2002] AC 357
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.