Case 2502217/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C. Paling v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502217/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C. Paling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was dismissed after the Respondent investigated anomalies in annual leave records. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's investigation was reasonable: the investigator interviewed the Claimant, made further enquiries, and the dismissing manager reviewed the investigation materials and carried out her own analysis of the records.
The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent believed the Claimant had committed misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief. It found that the dismissing manager was entitled to reject the Claimant's explanations about poor record-keeping, TOIL and anticipated leave, and to conclude that he had deliberately and dishonestly taken excessive annual leave. Summary dismissal was held to fall within the band of reasonable responses.
The unauthorised deductions claim concerned a £346.50 deduction from the final payslip and alleged unpaid accrued holiday. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's calculation that, even giving the Claimant credit for four days' TOIL on his case at its highest, there had been an overpayment of one day's wages, so the deduction was lawful.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal described the claim as unauthorised deductions from wages and dismissed it, finding the final deduction was lawful. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Orr v Milton Keynes Council
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- band of reasonable responses
- Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd
- Whitbread plc v Hall
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Linfood Cash and Carry Ltd v Thomson
- Sharkey v Lloyds Bank Plc
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- NHS 24 v Pillar
- British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Nelson v BBC (No.2)
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.