Case 1400672/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Cornish v Downton Parish Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400672/2023
- Decision date
- 13 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lambert Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Cornish
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Cornish was employed as Clerk to Downton Parish Council from 1 April 2005 until she resigned with effect from 16 September 2022. She brought two complaints: a breach of contract claim relating to the Respondent's failure to backdate her enrolment in the Local Government Pension Scheme to the auto-enrolment date of 1 March 2016 (it having only enrolled her from November 2019), and a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal under sections 94, 95, 98 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, relying on 14 separate allegations of conduct said to amount, individually or cumulatively, to a repudiatory breach of contract.
The hearing took place via CVP before Employment Judge Lambert sitting at Bristol on 13–17 January 2025. The Respondent's case was that the events relied upon either did not occur or did not occur as alleged, and in any event did not amount to a repudiatory breach, and that the Claimant had in fact resigned to take up new employment. On the pension claim, the Respondent contended the contractual entitlement was not triggered until the Claimant indicated she wished to join the LGPS in November 2019, having regard to her senior role as Clerk with responsibility for the Council's compliance with its legal obligations.
The tribunal found both complaints not well-founded and dismissed them. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claimant alleged the Respondent breached her contract by failing to backdate her enrolment in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to the auto-enrolment date of 1 March 2016. The tribunal found the complaint not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Claimant relied on 14 separate allegations said individually or cumulatively to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal (ss.94, 95, 98 and 111 ERA 1996) not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Pensions Act 2008
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.