Case 1400480/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Jackson, CAB For the v Mr C Morse, Chartered Legal Executive — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400480/2020
- Decision date
- 23 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Jackson, CAB For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Wendy Holmes worked as a bar person at the Plume of Feathers pub from 1 August 2004. Sauman Limited took over the pub lease on 15 April 2019. The claimant resigned by letter dated 20 September 2019, giving notice to 6 October 2019, and alleged that she had been constructively dismissed because of a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
The tribunal found there had been some clash of personalities, particularly between the claimant and Mrs Finnie, but no conduct before 15 September 2019 that amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It rejected the claimant's case that she had been subjected to a continuing course of aggressive or bullying behaviour. The tribunal noted that by late June 2019 the claimant had texted that she was "much happier in work now" and got on well with Mr and Mrs Finnie.
The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence about the events of 15 September 2019. It found that Mrs Finnie closed the pub and sent the claimant home in a calm manner after an incident involving customer complaints and a waitress, and rejected the claimant's account that she had been shouted at, told to "fuck off home", or physically threatened. On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent had not committed any fundamental breach and that the claimant's resignation could not be treated as a constructive dismissal.
The tribunal also noted that Mr Finnie replied to the resignation letter offering the claimant an opportunity to reconsider and/or pursue a formal grievance, which was inconsistent with an intention to force her out. Because there was no dismissal, the unfair dismissal claim failed, and the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay also failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract or constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim in respect of the balance of contractual and statutory notice pay; dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Courtaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Sibson
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Tullett Prebon PLC and Ors v BGC Brokers LP and Ors
- Claridge v Daler Rowney
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Nottingham County Council v Meikle
- Abbey Cars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Leeds Dental Team v Rose
- Hilton v Shiner Ltd - Builders Merchants
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2009
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.