Case 6007948/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Julius Che v Plymouth Hope — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007948/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Winfield Representation
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Julius Che
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the respondent under a contract of employment between 6 October 2021 and 4 June 2024, giving it jurisdiction to hear the claims. Earlier race discrimination and whistleblowing claims had been withdrawn and were not before the tribunal.
On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent did not provide a meaningful response or support after the claimant raised concerns about tax, employment status and a grievance. It found a causal link between that breach and the claimant's resignation, while not finding evidence that the claimant's illness was directly attributable to the respondent.
On notice pay, the tribunal found that a one month notice period was reasonable on the evidence and that the claimant had not been paid notice after resigning with immediate effect. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded and that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal described this as breach of contract in relation to notice pay and found wrongful dismissal on the basis that notice pay was not paid. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.