Case 3200653/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Sargent v Capstan Group Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200653/2021
- Decision date
- 7 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Sargent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant had signed the 2016 Particulars of Employment, which introduced a zero-hours arrangement under which the respondent was not obliged to provide work and the claimant was not obliged to accept it. The claimant had worked at Buckingham Palace and other sites, was furloughed from March 2020, and then in August 2020 the respondent said furlough was ending and work was available only at Buckingham Palace. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was shielding because of a clinically vulnerable family member and that he did not receive the 7 August 2020 letter sent by post.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that receipt of the P45 on 5 November 2020 communicated a dismissal. Compensatory award was reduced to nil under Polkey; no basic award was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found dismissal in breach of the contractual entitlement to notice because no notice was given. No monetary sum was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had already received his maximum 28 days' holiday pay in 2020, including holiday used to top up furlough pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was the additional furlough pay aspect originally pleaded; the claimant did not pursue it and it was withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- objective dismissal communication test
- Sandle v Adecco UK Limited
- Polkey principle
- Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby
- Willoughby v CF Capital Plc
- Harrison v George Wimpey and Co Ltd
- Gisda Cyf v Barrett
- McMaster v Manchester Airport plc
- Oram v Initial Contract Services Ltd
- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.97 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs. 13, 13A, 14, 15, 16
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.