Case 3311776/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Denby v Alan Goldin Estates Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311776/2021
- Decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Denby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hybrid hearing in Watford on 28 and 29 April 2022, Employment Judge Daley heard Mr Daniel Denby's claim against Alan Goldin Estates Ltd. Mr Denby had worked for the respondent from 12 March 2016, initially as a sales negotiator and later as Sales and Letting Manager. The parties accepted that until 24 February 2021 his terms were oral, and that he was paid £32,000 per year plus commission.
The tribunal found that after a meeting on 28 January 2021, Mr Alan Goldin agreed to top up the claimant's pay so that he received net £4,000 per month, and that WhatsApp messages referred to the salary being "covered until March" and to figuring out a way to do the arrangement. On 24 February 2021 the claimant signed a written contract, but the tribunal found that it did not mirror the prior oral terms: bank/Christian holidays and Jewish holidays were omitted, as was 15% commission on introduced business. It also found that the written contract was introduced while the business was being prepared for sale, and that the claimant had been told there would be a further discussion about remuneration in April 2021.
Applying Western Excavating v Sharp, London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju and Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, the tribunal held that the omissions, the assurance about an April review, and the claimant's discovery that the business had been sold formed cumulative conduct that damaged the implied term of trust and confidence. It accepted that the respondent was not required to tell him about the sale as such, but found that the reassurances and the change in contractual terms went beyond legitimate non-disclosure. The claimant resigned in response to that breach, and the tribunal therefore found both constructive dismissal under s95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and unfair dismissal under s98. The judgment was liability-only and directed that the matter be listed for a remedy hearing; no award was fixed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that Mr Denby was constructively dismissed within s95(1)(c) ERA 1996 after cumulative conduct by the respondent undermined the implied term of trust and confidence. No remedy was determined in this liability judgment and the matter was listed for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair within s98 ERA 1996 and said the respondent did not provide any fair reason for the conduct that led to Mr Denby's resignation. No remedy was determined in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Western Excavating v Sharp
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Malik terms
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.