Case 3304283/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Ben Jones (Paralegal) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304283/2020
- Decision date
- 19 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an estate agent from 20 May 2019 and was dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct on 30 March 2020. He presented a claim on 30 April 2020 for wrongful dismissal / breach of contract, but on 4 May 2021 he emailed the Tribunal saying he no longer wished it to look into his concerns and asked for the case to be closed. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claimant's claim upon withdrawal.
The respondent's counter-claim sought repayment of guaranteed commission said to have been paid under the 15 May 2019 offer letter, namely £1,600 at Guildford and £4,256 at Kingston. For the purposes of the counter-claim the tribunal accepted that the claimant had committed gross misconduct and had been dismissed for gross misconduct, based on the evidence of poor performance, a warning on 24 February 2020, continued disregard of instructions, concerns about 11 days of inactivity, and a disputed mileage claim.
The tribunal held that the repayment wording in the 15 May 2019 offer letter formed part of the contract but was ambiguous. On its proper construction, the clause only applied if the claimant chose to leave his employment and did not cover dismissal, whether for gross misconduct or otherwise. The tribunal also rejected reliance on clause 6.7, noting that the respondent had not pleaded or quantified the claim on that basis and that, in any event, the later Kingston terms and the eventual written contract did not include the repayment clause. The counter-claim was therefore dismissed.
On costs, the tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings by failing to comply with Tribunal directions, failing to respond to the counter-claim, not attending the earlier listed hearing, and only withdrawing shortly before the final hearing. From the respondent's costs schedule of £1,602, the tribunal disallowed the ET3 item and reduced certain document items by 50%, resulting in a costs order of £1,163.50 against the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim presented on 30 April 2020 as wrongful dismissal / breach of contract. The tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal after the claimant emailed on 4 May 2021 saying he no longer wished the Tribunal to look into his concerns. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counter-claim sought repayment of guaranteed commission paid at Guildford (£1,600) and Kingston (£4,256). The tribunal held the repayment wording did not cover dismissal and clause 6.7 did not entitle recovery. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,164
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- parol evidence rule
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.