Mr R Gee v John P Gee & Sons Ltd: 3300956/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2022 |
| Date | 11 December 2022 |
| Published date | 04 January 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3300956/2021 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case No: 3300956/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Robert Gee
Respondent: John P Gee & Sons Limited
Heard at: Watford Remotely On: 06.10.2022 and 07.10.2022
Before: Judge L Mensah
Appearance:
For the Claimant: Mr Oliver Lawrence (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr Roderick Moore (Counsel)
FINAL JUDGMENT
The Tribunal orders are;
1. The claim for holiday pay is made out, and was agreed by consent to
be £1,657.08.
2. The claim for expenses is also made out and was agreed by consent to
be £255.71.
3. The claim for Unfair Dismissal is not made out and I dismiss it.
4. The claim for Wrongful Dismissal is made out and I order the
Respondent to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £3077.00, subject to the
deduction of tax and national insurance.
The Background
5. This matter came before me for a two day hearing. The parties all appeared
remotely. There was some late service of evidence between the parties which
was agreed and meant the bundle ran to 437 pages. The Claimant gave
evidence and called his wife Mrs Helen Gee as a witness. The Respondent
called Mr John Michael Gee and Mrs Pamela Humphreys. I heard evidence
Case No: 3300956/2021
2
over the course of the two days, but there was insufficient time to hear
submissions having concluded the evidence at 17.03pm on day two. I
therefore ordered that written submissions were filed. Both parties filed written
submissions in accordance with my directions.
6. There was also a discussion about whether it would be possible to cover
liability and quantum in full within the two days. It was suggested the issue of
mitigation may have to be put back to another date. It was ultimately agreed
the parties would deal with both liability and quantum in full, as not to do so
may have resulted in significant delay.
The Issues and Law
7. At the start of the hearing, I identified a number of potential issues in the case
and asked for the parties’ representatives to discuss what was in dispute. The
issues were as follows:
1.1 Was the Claimant an employee of the Respondent within the meaning
of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
1.2 Was the claimant a worker of the respondent within the meaning of
section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
1.3 If the answer to one of the above is affirmed, from what date did the
Claimant commence employment with the Respondent as either an
employee, or worker, and,
1.4 What date did the Claimant’s employment or status as a worker
terminate? The definition of the effective date of termination is
contained in ERA 1996 s 97(1).
1.5 Was the claimant dismissed or did he resign?
1.6 If the Claimant was dismissed was he unfairly dismissed?
1.6.1 If the Claimant was dismissed, what was the reason or
principal reason for dismissal?
1.6.2 Was it a potentially fair reason?
1.6.3 Did the Respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in
treating it as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?
1.6.4 What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The
Respondent says the reason was a substantial reason
capable of justifying dismissal, namely a breakdown in the
relationship.
To continue reading
Request your trial