Mr K Waterfield v SE Trains Limited — 2026

Employment Judge Abbott found that Mr K Waterfield's resignation from SE Trains Limited on 2 April 2024 did not amount to a dismissal. The hearing on 3 August 2026 concerned that preliminary issue alone. Mr Waterfield accepted that none of his complaints could proceed if he had not been dismissed. The tribunal therefore dismissed the entire claim and cancelled the final hearing listed for 7–11 December 2026.

Mr Waterfield was a Train Driver and Driver Instructor who could not resume driving after failing a visual assessment in July 2023. He undertook temporary CCTV work while receiving treatment for his eye condition and remained subject to the capability policy. The tribunal found that the April review meeting followed occupational health guidance recommending a three-month review; its timing was not influenced by impending changes to flexible-working law. Mr Waterfield had read the invitation warning that dismissal was a possible outcome and understood that the meeting could affect his employment.

Before the formal meeting began, Mr Waterfield and his union representative, Paul Dennis, discussed resignation as an option if dismissal remained possible. The tribunal relied on Mr Waterfield's messages to his wife in finding that he had authorised Mr Dennis to explore this option. Management told Mr Dennis that no decision had been made and that dismissal was one possible outcome. Mr Dennis negotiated an increase in the proposed payment in lieu of notice from six to eight weeks, with the resignation processed as retirement and Mr Waterfield retaining the right to apply for a retired travel pass.

The tribunal rejected Mr Waterfield's account that he had categorically refused to resign. It found that management had not presented him with an ultimatum to resign or be dismissed. He requested guidance on writing his resignation letter and then wrote and signed it. Applying the approach to recollection in Gestmin, the judge assessed the competing accounts against the documentary evidence. Mr Waterfield's messages before and after the meeting, his Facebook retirement post and his manager's subsequent account supported the finding of a consensual resignation.

Applying Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd, the tribunal asked who had really terminated the employment contract and found that it was Mr Waterfield. He chose retirement on acceptable terms rather than risk dismissal at the capability meeting. Any understanding that dismissal had already been decided arose from his exchange with Mr Dennis, rather than from the respondent's actions. The tribunal distinguished Sandhu because Mr Waterfield had advance notice that dismissal was possible and the respondent never told him he would be dismissed unless he resigned. The judgment records no monetary award.