Case 3323405/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Castleton v Workforce Software Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3323405/2019
- Decision date
- 10 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Castleton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Castleton’s claim was for unfair dismissal only. The respondent accepted that it dismissed him for conduct/capability reasons. The tribunal found that he had started work in February 2017, had been placed on a performance improvement plan after about 10 months and again in September 2018, and that further concerns in April 2019 led to a final written warning. Further concerns in July 2019 led to dismissal on 10 July 2019, and his appeal was rejected.
The claimant argued that procedures had not been properly applied, that not all allegations had been investigated before the first meeting, that he had not had enough time to answer the allegations, and that he had been treated differently from other employees who were late. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanation that two of the three comparators had informal flexible working arrangements and that the third had been subject to a formal process. It also noted that the claimant had not asked for flexible working.
Applying section 98(1) and (2) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the authorities it cited, including Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods, Foley, Midland Bank plc v Madden, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt and Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos Ltd, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant’s performance/conduct was unsatisfactory and had a reasonable basis for that belief. It found the respondent had investigated the allegations, gave the claimant extra time when he raised concern about the response period, and that any initial prejudice was cured by that extension and the appeal.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It treated the case as the fourth occasion on which the claimant’s performance had been found wanting over about two and a bit years, and said the dismissal followed only three months after the final written warning. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and no compensation issue arose.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had a valid conduct/capability reason, had a reasonable basis for its belief, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office
- Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt
- Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos 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.