Case 3323050/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ricky Cauldwell v Defries Associates Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323050/2021
- Decision date
- 23 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tuck KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ricky Cauldwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ricky Cauldwell was employed by Defries Associates Ltd from 1 March 2015 until his effective date of termination on 29 October 2021. The tribunal accepted that, in October 2021, he raised concerns about a 2019 tap invoice and later referred to a historic settlement payment, but it did not accept that he had a reasonable belief that either matter showed embezzlement or any other criminal offence for the purposes of whistleblowing protection under s.43B ERA 1996. The tribunal found the tap invoice was much more likely to have been an error than deliberate wrongdoing, and it found the settlement-payment point was raised only after dismissal and was not causative of dismissal in any event.
The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's email of 25 October 2021, in which he included the contact details of almost 300 tenants on an unsecured email. The respondent treated that as a serious data breach, reported it to the ICO, and obtained legal advice before dismissing him. On that basis the tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, found the dismissal was not wrongful because it arose from conduct amounting to breach of contract, and dismissed the notice-pay claim.
The dismissal was nevertheless unfair because there was no attempt to follow a proper disciplinary procedure or the ACAS Code. Applying the Polkey approach, the tribunal concluded that a fair procedure would have taken two weeks to complete, but that dismissal would still have been inevitable after that process. It therefore limited compensation to two weeks' net pay and found it just and equitable to make no basic award because the claimant contributed to his dismissal by 100%.
The tribunal also dismissed the holiday pay claim. It found there was no evidence before it of any outstanding holiday entitlement at hearing, and noted that the claimant had already received a net payment of £1,926.47 on 31 January 2022 described as being in satisfaction of holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair because no ACAS disciplinary procedure was followed; tribunal found a fair procedure would have taken two weeks and dismissal would still have followed. | Upheld | — | £1,362 |
| Whistleblowing | Tribunal found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that the tap invoice issue or the settlement payment amounted to a criminal offence, and in any event those matters were not the principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissal was held to be because of conduct amounting to a breach of contract, so the notice-pay claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant led no evidence of outstanding holiday pay at hearing and had already received a net payment of £1,926.47 on 31 January 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,362
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,362
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown AM
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott Hay & Anderson
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements
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.