Case 2303039/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Normile v Let's Go Green Cabs Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303039/2023
- Decision date
- 28 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Normile
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Normile had worked for Let's Go Green Cabs Ltd from March 2017, moved into office work in September 2019, and was an employee on a salary of £36,400 a year when the employment ended. He brought a constructive unfair dismissal complaint based on the respondent's handling of alleged performance concerns and the events of March 2023.
The tribunal found that there had been no clear performance management process. It accepted that the claimant had not been given proper written or verbal warnings, targets, or a fair opportunity to improve, and that the respondent did not have a performance management policy or annual appraisals. It also accepted that on 14 March 2023 Mr Gorman told the claimant, in front of others, that his wages were too high and that he would need to move to work as a self-employed driver.
The tribunal found that the 18 March 2023 letter ended the employment without stating a reason and required the claimant to work as a taxi driver during his notice period. At the 22 March 2023 meeting, the claimant was told that he was not being made redundant, that he was being laid off for poor performance, and that his notice period would be extended so that he could earn the equivalent of a redundancy payment. The tribunal held that the public announcement, the absence of any fair capability process, and the immediate change in working arrangements were fundamental breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence without reasonable or proper cause. It did not treat the notice extension itself as a breach, but found that the overall course of conduct from 14 March 2023 caused the claimant to resign on 27 March 2023 and that he had not affirmed the contract, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
Separately, the tribunal found that when the proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to give the claimant a written statement of employment particulars. It found no exceptional circumstances making the statutory minimum unjust or inequitable and awarded two weeks' gross pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. On the salary found by the tribunal, that award equals £1,400. A separate remedy hearing was to be listed for the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response to fundamental breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence and had not affirmed the contract. Liability was decided at this hearing; a separate remedy hearing was to be listed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Breach of the duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The judgment awards two weeks' gross pay; using the salary found by the tribunal (£36,400 per annum), that equals £1,400. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,400
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating constructive dismissal test
- Woods v W M Car Services implied term of trust and confidence
- Malik v BCCI trust and confidence test
- Bournemouth University v Buckland
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages last straw
- Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s.98(1)(b) and (2) ERA 1996
- Acas Code of Practice
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.