Mrs P Edwards v Stonegate Pub Company Limited SITTING AT: Birmingham — 2026

The claimant relied on a sequence of events said to amount to constructive unfair dismissal, including the respondent not applying a redundancy consultation process to the August 2023 restructure, the new Head of Agreements role being significantly different from what had been envisaged, added work connected with tenancy and operator-led model changes, IT projects, performance management work, increased workload and lack of support, and an appraisal on 11 November 2024 which she said was the last straw. The tribunal found that the old and new roles were significantly and substantially different, including a seniority increase, higher salary from just over £41,500 to £55,000, and a larger potential bonus. It also found that the claimant accepted the new role without conditions, entered a new contract from 27 September 2023, and did not work under protest.

The tribunal accepted that aspects of the claimant's workload increased, including work arising from the operator-led model, IT projects, and performance management of a team member. It found that most of this work fell within clause three of her contract and was temporary or connected with unforeseen issues, and that asking her to undertake it was not a breach of contract. The tribunal accepted one criticism of Mr Richards' handling of the onboarding project: he was not sufficiently proactive in getting other departmental managers to make decisions for their own departments rather than leaving the claimant to do so. It also found that the claimant's appraisal was not conducted well because no feedback was given about the previous 12 months.

The tribunal treated the 11 November 2024 appraisal as the act that triggered the claimant's resignation and found that she had not affirmed the contract after it. It held that the appraisal was not, by itself, a repudiatory breach of contract, and considered whether it formed part of a sequence of events which cumulatively breached trust and confidence. Applying the objective threshold for breach of trust and confidence, the tribunal found that the combination of the poor appraisal and insufficient proactivity over other managers' decisions did not destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. Because the claim of unfair dismissal was the only claim before the tribunal, it found the claim was not well founded and dismissed it. No remedy was awarded; the monetary figures in the judgment related to remuneration and potential earnings in the new role, not compensation.