Case 2304830/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Wildman For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304830/2019
- Decision date
- 29 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr F Wildman For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Siddall, sitting alone, found that the claimant, who had worked for Firefly Properties Limited from 1 March 2010 as Office Manager and later Sales Director, was constructively dismissed by the letter handed to her on 4 July 2019. The letter said her employment should end immediately unless she resigned, and the tribunal held that this amounted to a repudiatory breach accepted when she left and did not return. The dismissal was unfair because the respondent had not investigated the cash payment from H, had not given the claimant an opportunity to explain it, and had referred to unspecified additional concerns; the respondent therefore failed the Burchell test.
The tribunal found that later-discovered material showed the claimant had assisted H with his private sale, including instructing solicitors, arranging a mortgage valuation, and corresponding with the buyer, while H also owed the respondent money. Those matters were not in the respondent's mind when it dismissed her on 4 July 2019, so they did not affect liability, but they were relevant to compensation. Applying W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins, the tribunal held there was a 25% chance that a fair disciplinary process after 15 August 2019 could have led to dismissal, so the compensatory award was reduced by 25%.
The claimant was awarded a basic award of £4,446.72 and a compensatory award of £16,669.06, giving a total award of £21,115.78. The compensatory calculation started from net loss of £29,203.28 to the hearing date, added £500 for injury to feelings, and then deducted £7,477.87 for post-dismissal earnings before the 25% reduction. The separate wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal held that the later-discovered conduct may well have justified summary dismissal in any event, relying on Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansel. The application to add Firefly Homes Kent Limited as a second respondent was refused because the tribunal was not satisfied that a relevant TUPE transfer had been shown.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed by the 4 July 2019 letter and that the dismissal was unfair because there had been no prior investigation or disciplinary process, no chance to answer the allegations, and no prior warnings. The award comprised a basic award of £4,446.72 and a compensatory award of £16,669.06. | Upheld | — | £21,116 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim did not succeed. The tribunal held that post-dismissal evidence of the claimant's conduct could have justified summary dismissal in any event, and made no award under this heading. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,116
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,447
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,669
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Burchell test
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] ICR 662
- Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansel (1888) 39 Ch D 339
- TUPE regulations 4 and 7
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.