Case 2500745/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Green v Floorform UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500745/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Richard Green, had long service with Floorform UK Limited from 1 April 1986 and worked as its Health and Safety Manager. The tribunal recorded that he had long-term back problems and sickness absences, and that in December 2017 Mr Canavan asked whether he was thinking of retiring. The claimant said then that he had no intention of retiring at that time but would think about it. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that he was put under pressure in that 2017 discussion.
The tribunal found that a further discussion in August 2018, at the Armagh office, was face to face and that the claimant voluntarily said he intended to retire in April 2020. It rejected his later evidence that the conversation was by telephone or that the date was only provisional. The tribunal treated the claimant's October 2018 emails, including his reference to a "retirement date" of 30 April 2020 and his involvement in planning for his successor, as confirmation of that notice. It held that oral notice was sufficient, and that the later emails supported the finding that notice had been given.
The respondent accepted and relied on the notice by starting the recruitment process for a successor and telling the claimant that the new appointee would work alongside him. When the claimant later said in November 2019 that he might not retire, the parties met on 7 January 2020 and the respondent then wrote on 20 January 2020 confirming retirement on 30 April 2020 and reliance on the earlier notice. Applying the objective approach to ambiguous words and the principle that notice cannot be unilaterally withdrawn, the tribunal held that the claimant voluntarily resigned for reasons of retirement rather than being dismissed. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination claims, and recorded the claimant's earlier concession that if he had given notice, all claims would fall.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant voluntarily gave notice of retirement ending on 30 April 2020, so he was not dismissed by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed with the other claims after the tribunal found that the claimant had voluntarily resigned by giving notice of retirement; the judgment did not make a separate age-specific merits finding. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed with the other claims after the tribunal found that the claimant had voluntarily resigned by giving notice of retirement; the judgment did not make a separate disability-specific merits finding. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd
- Sothern v Franks Charlesly and Co
- Graham Group plc v Garratt
- BG Gale Ltd v Gilbert
- Chapman v Letheby & Christopher Ltd
- Beadnell v James Howden and Co Ltd
- Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd
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.