Case 2305702/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Mundy-Castle v Woodcote High School CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305702/2021
- Decision date
- 6 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
- Panel members
- Ms J Cook, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Mundy-Castle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Mundy-Castle started employment on 1 September 2019 and that his last day of employment was 2 August 2021, so he did not have two years' service. It rejected the argument that earlier preparatory work counted as employment, noting that the earlier agreement was a confidentiality and non-disclosure arrangement and not a contract of employment.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the respondent had genuine and reasonable concerns about repeated finance leases entered without approval, failures to provide financial information, the Doc Hearts interest, and a professional reference given while the claimant was suspended. It held that the suspension, investigation, disciplinary process, dismissal and appeal were driven by those concerns, not by race or protected disclosures. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones and the Burchell test, it found the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and that the disciplinary panel genuinely and reasonably believed gross misconduct had been committed.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made the pleaded protected acts under the Equality Act 2010, but found no less favourable treatment because of race and no harassment with the requisite purpose or effect. It rejected the victimisation and whistleblowing complaints because the treatment complained of was not caused by protected acts or protected disclosures. The appeal dismissal was also found not to be race-related or disclosure-related, and all claims were dismissed without any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant had not established less favourable treatment because of race, rejected the comparator evidence, and held that the suspension, investigation, dismissal and appeal were not race-related. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed; the tribunal found the alleged conduct did not have the requisite race-related purpose or effect and did not amount to harassment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed; although the tribunal accepted the claimant had made protected acts, it found the complained-of treatment was not because of those acts. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed; in relation to the suspension and commencement of the disciplinary process, the tribunal found the respondent acted on disciplinary concerns and not because of protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed; the tribunal found protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal or for dismissal of the appeal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' service and, in any event, would not have succeeded because the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- section 43B ERA 1996
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 103A 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.