Mr S Taylor v Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation: 2203565/2019
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Citation | 2203565/2019 |
| Published date | 12 February 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 2203565/2019 V
1 of 39
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr S Taylor
Respondent: Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal (in public; by video)
On: 16 July 2020
Before: Employment Judge Quill (sitting alone)
Appearances
For the claimant: Mr R Roberts, counsel
For the respondent: Mr N Siddal QC
This was a remote hearing with the consent of the parties. The form of remote hearing was [V: video fully
(all remote)]. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable. The documents that I
was referred to are in a bundle of 729 pages, the contents of which I have recorded. The decisions made
are described below.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
(1) The complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the time limit set out
in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and is therefore dismissed.
(2) The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was not presented within
the time limit set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and is therefore
dismissed.
(3) The complaint of breach of contract was not presented within the time limit set
out in the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales)
Order 1994 and is therefore dismissed.
(4) The complaint of failure to make a payment required by the Working Time
Regulations was not presented within the time limit set out in those regulation
and is therefore dismissed.
(5) These were the only complaints, and therefore the whole of the claim has been
dismissed.
Case Number: 2203565/2019 V
2 of 39
REASONS
Introduction
1. I apologise to the parties for the lateness of this judgment and reasons, which was
caused partly by dealing with other matters, and partly by a desire to thoroughly
consider all aspects of the facts and law.
2. This was a public preliminary hearing, which was arranged at a case management
hearing on 11 May 2020. The purpose was to consider certain preliminary issues,
and then to make case management decisions.
The Claims
3. As set out in the claim form, the claims are Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract,
Unauthorised Deduction from Wages and Holiday Pay.
4. The unauthorised deduction claim asserts that the Claimant’s performance met
certain criteria and that, therefore, he had become entitled to a pay rise which had
not been implemented.
5. The breach of contract claim asserts entitlement to damages under various heads,
and the right to bring a claim in relation to notice entitlement in the civil courts.
Paragraph 19 refers to “the unilateral decision to terminate my contract” by the
Chairperson and some other alleged breaches of contract (and constitutional
irregularities) are described in paragraph 21.
The Preliminary Issues
6. To determine, as a preliminary issue, what was the “effective date of termination”?
Was it, for example, any of the following, or was it some other date:
6.1 20 November 2018? (The date on which a summary dismissal took effect),
according to the Respondent)
6.2 30 April 2019? (A date mentioned in the Claimant’s claim form)
6.3 16 September 2019? (The date on which the Claimant’s fixed-term employment
contract was due to expire if there was no prior termination).
7. To consider, to the extent that it is necessary to do so, whether the Claimant
complied with his obligations in relation to early conciliation and, if not, to decide
what relevance (if any) that has to the validity of the claim.
8. To determine, as a preliminary issue,
8.1 Was each complaint submitted within the relevant time limit?
8.2 If not, is the tribunal satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to do so,
and, if so, was the claim presented within such further period as the tribunal
considers reasonable?
9. Does the tribunal give permission for the Claimant to amend his claim?
Case Number: 2203565/2019 V
3 of 39
The Evidence
10. The parties had agreed a 729 bundle, with a separate index. I was also supplied
with some videos, but the parties agreed that I did not need to watch those prior to
hearing the evidence and submissions. I have viewed them as part of my
deliberations.
11. There were written statements from Shivnesh Prasad on behalf of the Respondent
and from the Claimant on his own behalf. Each of those witnesses gave evidence
on oath and answered questions from the other side and from me.
The Hearing
12. The hearing took place fully remotely via video and there were no significant
technology problems. By agreement, I heard Mr Prasad’s evidence first due to his
time zone. Both Mr Prasad and the Claimant were outside the UK. In addition to
the evidence, I had written skeleton arguments from each side, including
references to relevant cases, and I heard oral submissions.
13. A potentially significant matter related to whether the Claimant could amend his
claim so as to allege that he had not been dismissed as of 30 April 2019 (a date
mentioned in the ET1) because any purported dismissal before September 2019
was not valid. However, it was accepted that regardless of the merits of
amendment application – or the substantive allegations contained within it – I was
in any event going to have to decide the effective date of termination as a matter
of law, which, in turn, would require me to consider the Claimant’s argument that
the purported actual dismissal was ineffective.
14. The hearing finished around 3.50pm and I reserved my judgment.
The findings of fact
15. The Claimant is a former employee of the Respondent. The Respondent is an
inter-governmental treaty organisation. It has headquarters in London.
16. The staff handbook refers to The Commonwealth Telecommunications
Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1983. That order states that the
Respondent will have “the legal capacities of a body corporate”.
17. The Claimant began working for the Respondent, as Secretary General, on 17
September 2015. He was appointed on a 4-year fixed term contract which was
potentially renewable.
18. The employer was described in the contract as “Commonwealth
Telecommunications Organisation (‘the CTO’) 64-66 Glenthorne Road, London
W6 0LR”. His contract stated that he would report to “Commonwealth
Telecommunications Council (‘The Council’) through its chairperson”. At clause 2,
it was stated that he would be “responsible to” the Council through its chairperson.
“CTO” was the shorthand for the body (treated as having the capacity of a
corporate body by UK law) which employed the Claimant, and CTO was regarded
as distinct from “the Council”.
To continue reading
Request your trial