Case 6015977/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gray v Capita plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015977/2024
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AE Pitt
- Venue
- Newcastle Civil & Family Courts & Tribunal via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Disability Analyst employed by Capita PLC from 1 March 2021, resigned on 5 September 2024 following his suspension and an investigation into whether he had falsified a record of a call to the Autism Inclusion Team in relation to a PIP assessment. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to investigate the complaint, acted in accordance with its own disciplinary policy and ACAS guidance, and that the matters complained of, individually or cumulatively, did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The judge concluded that the claimant resigned because he intended to take up another position rather than because of any breakdown in the employment relationship, and that he had decided to resign no later than 12 August 2024.
On the wages claim, the respondent accepted it had underpaid the claimant for 2.1 days in September and 3 days in October, amounting to £399.40, which had been repaid in January 2025. The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction claim only to that extent. Claims relating to pension contribution deductions, compensation for untaken annual leave, and reimbursement for leave taken during suspension were not upheld; the claimant had taken 178 hours against 150 hours accrued, and his contract did not confer an entitlement to recoup wages for holidays taken during suspension.
Accordingly, the constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, the unlawful deduction from wages claim was upheld in the sum of £399.40 (already paid), and the remaining wage-related complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed; the unfair dismissal claim founded on constructive dismissal therefore fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim dismissed as a consequence of the finding that there was no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent accepted underpayment for 2.1 days in September and 3 days in October totalling £399.40, already paid to the claimant in settlement. Further alleged deductions (pension contributions, compensation for untaken annual leave, reimbursement for leave taken during suspension) were not upheld. | Upheld | — | £399 |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal concluded the claimant's contract did not confer an entitlement to recoup wages for holidays taken during suspension, and that statements by Mr Richey did not give rise to a contractual benefit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claimant had accrued 150 hours but taken 178 hours of annual leave at the effective date of termination, so no further compensation was due. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations; treated here as a holiday pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £399
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- ACAS guidance
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.