Case 4110357/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H R Gresham v Animal and Plant Health Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110357/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H R Gresham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Gresham brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim against the Animal and Plant Health Agency. The tribunal found that his employment involved an unusual six-month paid and six-month unpaid pattern, that payroll was outsourced to SSCL, and that a number of overpayment and payslip issues arose in 2020. An invoice for £1,841.03 was issued in error for a sum that had already been repaid, reminders then followed, and a further overpayment issue for 2020 was identified at £6,405.76 after an earlier figure of just over £9,000 had been reduced. The tribunal accepted that the respondent and DEFRA escalated the matter through several senior staff and that, by December 2020 and January 2021, the claimant knew the earlier invoice was a mistake and had most of the pay information he needed.
Applying Malik v BCCI, Western Excavating, and the later constructive dismissal authorities it cited, the tribunal identified the claimant’s alleged last straw as SSCL’s failure to provide promised payroll documents by 5 February 2021. It found that this omission was not itself a repudiatory breach, noting the explanation that the relevant person was working from home without access to the server and that the claimant had not challenged that explanation. Looking at the wider course of conduct, the tribunal held that the pay-slip issues were minor or had been remedied quickly, the complaints had been dealt with in substance, there was no evidence that debt collection had continued or that the claimant’s credit rating had been affected, and the respondent had acted as quickly as it could in the circumstances.
The tribunal also rejected causation. It found that the claimant indicated on 29 January 2021 that he intended to resign by giving notice from 6 February 2021, before the alleged last straw on 5 February 2021. Although he did not affirm the contract after that date, the alleged breach did not cause his resignation. The claim was therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim based on payroll overpayment errors, payroll records, repeated complaints, debt-collection correspondence, and delay. The tribunal held there was no repudiatory breach and, in any event, the claimant had already decided to resign before the alleged last straw. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Malik v BCCI / Mahmud v BCCI
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Savoia v Chiltern Herb Farms Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Abbycars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- RDF Media Group plc 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.