in person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed by Paroh Ltd from 16 July 2012, first as sales account manager, then sales director and later managing director. The tribunal found that the relationship with Mr Sam Sohal deteriorated after the group board meeting on 9 February 2017, but it also found that many of the incidents relied on by the claimant were either not made out or were too minor to amount to a breach of contract. The claimant offered to resign on 12 May 2017, but Mr Sohal asked him to stay until the end of the financial year and the claimant agreed, which the tribunal treated as an affirmation of the contract.

The tribunal accepted that some events happened, including the email exchange while the claimant was in China, discussions about CCTV, the request to resign in late October 2017, the settlement discussions, the January 2018 meetings, and some short exchanges in Punjabi between Mr Sohal and Mr Gill. However, it found that several of the more serious allegations were not proved, including any threat of dismissal on 9 January 2018, any demotion through the September 2018 phone list, and any change to the claimant's direct reports. The Punjabi exchanges were found to be, at most, discourteous. The tribunal also found that Mr Gill worked supportively with the claimant and the finance team, and that the business was making financial improvements during 2017/2018.

The tribunal considered the claimant's October 2017 request to resign to be capable of amounting to a potential breach of trust and confidence, but not a repudiatory breach on its own. It held that the claimant remained willing to continue in post if he received what he considered fair compensation, and that he later carried on working for almost a year. By the time of the resignation meeting on 13 September 2018, the claimant's decision to resign was triggered by Mr Sohal's refusal to authorise further stock purchases, recruit a buyer, and approve a salary review, rather than by any earlier complaint. The tribunal found that this refusal was an executive business decision in the context of Paroh's financial position, not a fundamental breach or last straw. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal therefore failed and was dismissed.