Case 3303868/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Laffy v WKCIC Group t/a Capital City College Group and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303868/2023
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Bury, Mr Scott
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Laffy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's claims arose from the breakdown in his relationship with Ms Odu and his concerns about how the first respondent handled issues he raised about her conduct. The tribunal dismissed the harassment, direct discrimination and victimisation complaints, including after considering whether there were facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that discrimination had occurred.
The tribunal found that the first respondent's handling of the claimant's grievance breached the implied term of trust and confidence and the implied duty to reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to obtain redress of a grievance. It found that the first respondent failed to keep the claimant informed from mid-October 2022 until his resignation on 17 February 2023, failed to respond substantively to his requests for updates, and had still not provided an outcome when he presented his claim.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant resigned in response to that breach, did not unnecessarily delay, and did not affirm the contract. It was not persuaded that the first respondent had shown a potentially fair reason to dismiss, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The holiday pay claim was dismissed after evidence was given that the claimant had been paid for 5.6 weeks of holiday per year and the claimant did not maintain that further holiday pay was owed.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described the successful claim as constructive unfair dismissal. A remedy hearing was to be listed, so no remedy amount was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The claim for harassment related to sex was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The claim for harassment related to race was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The claim for harassment related to age was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claim for direct sex discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim for direct race discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The claim for direct age discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- Equality Act 2010 section 27
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- implied term of trust and confidence
- implied duty to reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to obtain redress of any grievance
- Harpur Trust v Brazel
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.