Case 1401293/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Katherine Gray v Southampton City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401293/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Winfield Representation
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Katherine Gray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim, alleging that Southampton City Council had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in connection with support on her return to work, confidentiality within the MET work group, Occupational Health referral, and events around an Ofsted meeting. The Tribunal treated only matters before resignation and relating to the Claimant's employment role as relevant.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent's actions, considered individually and cumulatively, did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. It found that the Claimant had a supportive employer through the relevant period and that the resignation letter related to the foster care process rather than the employer's conduct in the employment relationship.
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent did not destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence, and that there was no necessary causal link between the decision to resign and the Respondent's actions. The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The prompt text is truncated, but the reserved judgment and concluding reasons both state that the constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- fundamental breach of contract
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.