Case 2403457/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Astin v JDH Motor Repairs Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403457/2023
- Decision date
- 22 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Khan REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Astin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a single-issue unfair dismissal case. The tribunal identified the central factual dispute as whether Mr Astin resigned on 10 January 2023 or was dismissed. It preferred the claimant’s evidence and held that the respondent’s words, including “I think it’s time you went” and “There’s no time like the present”, could reasonably be construed as words of dismissal. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent’s same-day Facebook advert for a motor mechanic with immediate start supported the conclusion that the claimant had been dismissed rather than having resigned.
Having found that there was no resignation, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed without any fair procedure and therefore the dismissal was unfair. The judgment records that the issue of remedy was adjourned to 14 December 2023 to be heard by CVP. The tribunal also drew the parties’ attention to Polkey as a possible issue for the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed rather than having resigned. Remedy was adjourned to 14 December 2023 via CVP, and the tribunal noted that Polkey may be relevant to compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Polkey
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.