Case 2503456/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Douthwaite v DW Marshall Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503456/2018
- Decision date
- 7 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Douthwaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Douthwaite was employed by DW Marshall Ltd as a driver from 8 February 2016. The tribunal found that about 90% of his work was driving. After a long period of back-pain absence in 2018, the respondent recruited an additional driver and told him he would be a relief driver/warehouse worker. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence about that meeting, found that his role had been changed, and held that this was a fundamental breach of contract. It also found that the respondent's refusal to let him return to work when he had a GP fit note to drive and a consultant letter, while insisting on access to private medical records, was unnecessary and unreasonable; if there were fitness concerns, the respondent could have used occupational health under its policy.
The claimant raised grievances on 25 September, 12 October and 21 October 2018, contacted ACAS on 31 October, and resigned on 22 November 2018 when it became clear that he would not be allowed back on the basis he sought and that he would not be paid wages or sick pay. The tribunal found that he had not affirmed the contract and that he resigned because of the respondent's breaches, so the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded. The redundancy payment claim was dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by obtaining some ad hoc agency work and seeking further driving qualifications. It awarded £15,945.7 for unfair dismissal, made up of a £1,080 basic award and a £14,865.7 compensatory award. The compensatory award included immediate loss of £9,267 after £1,393 earnings, future loss of £4,920, £350 for loss of statutory rights and £328.7 pension loss; the prescribed element was £9,267 for the period 23 November 2018 to 10 June 2019. It also awarded £820 for notice pay and £1,640 for outstanding holiday pay, bringing the total awards to £18,405.7.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment's para 60 opens with £18,672.21, but the stated basic award and compensatory award total £15,945.7, matching para 1. | Upheld | — | £15,946 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay; the tribunal awarded two weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £820 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed; no redundancy payment was awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Award for 20 days' outstanding holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,640 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,406
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,080
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,866
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Hilton v Shiner Limited
- Land Securities Trillium Ltd v Thornley
- Coleman v S & W Baldwin
- Bessenden Properties Limited v Corness
- Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 and 13(A) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Protection (Recruitment of Benefits) Regulations 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.