Mr T Evans v Greenfields Financial Management Limited — 2026

Mr T Evans worked for Greenfields Financial Management Limited from 16 August 2021 until he resigned with immediate effect on 28 March 2025, latterly as an Independent Financial Advisor. The tribunal dismissed his claims for constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages relating to holiday pay and employer pension contributions. Applying the objective test for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, it found no repudiatory breach by the respondent, either through individual acts or cumulatively. Because Mr Evans resigned without notice and was not constructively dismissed, his claim for three weeks' notice pay also failed.

The tribunal found that the respondent had considered Mr Evans's request for a pay increase through two meetings and explained that it could not afford the increase. This provided reasonable and proper cause for declining the request. Mr Evans knew Emma Maitland would attend his pay review, had agreed to her involvement and thanked her afterwards. Alan Cottman was employed by the respondent by the time of the interactions complained of, so his involvement was not discussion with an outside third party. The tribunal also accepted that an advertisement sought an additional financial adviser who could bring clients to the business, rather than a replacement for Mr Evans.

The tribunal rejected Mr Evans's account of a telephone call on 6 February 2025 in which he said the business owner discussed a plan to dismiss him. It found that he had made up the alleged content and the purported contemporaneous diary notes. It relied on his failure to mention the call in his grievance, to his advisers when bringing the claim, or in his particulars of claim, together with his delay in requesting the recording. Conversations overheard by Olivia Bowry on 24 March concerned the settlement negotiations then taking place. The tribunal found no earlier plot to terminate his employment.

The tribunal found that CCTV was installed for site security, covered the entrance and farm assets, and did not capture Mr Evans's office door. It rejected the allegation that the camera was intended to monitor him. The request to the Court Service to confirm his magistrate sitting dates was made to meet an HMRC enquiry, rather than because the respondent doubted that he had performed those duties. At the meeting on 21 March, Mr Cottman's admitted words were capable of amounting to verbal abuse, but the tribunal rejected the alleged additional insult, aggression and desk-slapping. In the context of language routinely used in the workplace, including by Mr Evans, it found that the incident did not breach trust and confidence.

Mr Evans submitted his grievance on 21 March, began annual leave on 25 March and resigned on 28 March without returning to work. The tribunal found that the respondent had no opportunity to investigate before his resignation. It subsequently offered grievance meetings, but he did not engage with those requests. His asserted final straw was the failure to provide a settlement proposal within his two-day deadline. The tribunal found that this was an entirely innocuous omission, particularly because he had been told that the respondent needed advice and was unlikely to meet that deadline. Applying the last-straw principles, it also considered the earlier events and found no cumulative repudiatory breach.