Mr G Meaker v Cyxtera Technology UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 21 February 2023 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr G Meaker v Cyxtera Technology UK Limited
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 17
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 17
Case No: EA-2022-000036-LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 21 February 2023
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR G MEAKER Appellant
- and -
CYXTERA TECHNOLOGY UK LIMITED Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spencer Keen (instructed by Thompsons) for the Appellant
Anna Beale (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 5 January 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr G Meaker v Cyxtera Technology UK Limited
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 17
SUMMARY
Unfair Dismissal; Jurisdictional / Time Points
The claimant was employed in a heavy manual night role. He suffered back injuries in August 2016
and November 2018. Following the second of these he was off work for an extended period. At a
certain point it was agreed that limitations on his ability to do heavy work were likely to be permanent.
An application for income protection payments, and an appeal in that regard, were unsuccessful.
There followed a conversation with an HR manager in which the respondent indicated that it was
considering terminating the claimant’s employment, and the possibility of a settlement agreement
was raised. On 20 January 2020 the claimant had a further conversation with the HR manager. The
tribunal found that the claimant believed that further enquiries would thereafter be made about
alternative employment, and the manager had not made it clear to him that they would not.
On 5 February 2020 the respondent sent the claimant a letter which he received by 7 February. This
was headed “without prejudice”. It opened by stating that it had been agreed that there would be a
mutual termination of employment. It went on to state that the claimant’s last day of employment
would be 7 February, he would be paid up to that date, the amounts of holiday pay, and of the payment
in lieu of notice he would receive, and that he would be sent his P45. The letter also offered a further
ex gratia payment, conditional on the claimant signing an enclosed draft settlement agreement. The
letter was followed by a payment on 14 February which the claimant was told reflected his payment
in lieu of notice and holiday pay entitlement.
The tribunal found that the letter of 5 February was a dismissal letter, that the effective date of
termination was 7 February 2020 and that the claimant’s subsequent claim of unfair dismissal, was,
on that basis, presented out of time. It declined to extend time. The claimant appealed.
Held:
(1) On the assumption that the tribunal was correct that the 5 February 2020 letter was a
termination letter, even if it was a repudiatory breach that was not accepted by the claimant at
To continue reading
Request your trial