Case 3200702/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Phillip Cortail v London Borough of Newham — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200702/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Phillip Cortail
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence that, when he was appointed as Site Supervisor, he had agreed an arrangement with the previous headteacher under which he performed limited morning duties and undertook building work for the school at overtime rates during school holidays, while being able to take blocks of annual leave during term time. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's own evidence supported the existence and operation of that arrangement.
After a new headteacher took over, the Respondent sought to change the Claimant's duties and annual leave arrangements. The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not agree to those changes and made his disagreement clear. The Respondent then took disciplinary steps relating to his refusal to take leave as directed and began re-evaluating his role with a view to a lower grade.
The Tribunal found that taking disciplinary action and pursuing re-evaluation of the role in those circumstances was a significant breach going to the root of the contract and also breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The Claimant resigned in response to that breach, so his claim for constructive dismissal succeeded. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as unfair constructive dismissal. The Respondent admitted that, if the Claimant was constructively dismissed, the dismissal was unfair. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was settled and does not adjudicate it. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- Section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Devonald v Rosser and Sons
- Western Excavation Limited v Sharp
- Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Limited
- Morrow v Safeway Stores
- Bournemouth University v Buckland
- Marriott v Oxford Co-operative Society
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages 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.