Case 1402962/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr C Johnson, Consultant — 2020

Case reference: 1402962/2019
Decision date: 14 July 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr C Johnson, Consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr Mike Bowrey, was employed by Belgrave Commercials Limited as a Sales Executive from 1 December 2008 until his resignation took effect on 16 May 2019. The tribunal found that he had previously been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in January 2017 for dishonesty and in January 2018 for theft of company property, resulting in two final written warnings. It also found that there had been discussions in 2018 about possible redundancy, but no redundancy dismissal followed and he remained employed.

In May 2019 the claimant was suspended on full pay and called to a disciplinary hearing over further allegations of gross misconduct, including CCTV evidence said to show removal of wheel trims and a concern about a traded-in vehicle. After being handed the suspension letter on 16 May 2019, he gave a written resignation with immediate effect. The respondent later offered a cooling-off period, but the claimant did not retract his resignation at that stage.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegation that the respondent had engaged in a course of conduct amounting to a fundamental breach of contract or a destruction of trust and confidence. It found that several of the complaints relied on were not made out, including the complaints about toilet access, CCTV monitoring, reduced sales opportunities, the holiday booking system, and the diary issue. It held that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for the steps it took, including in relation to the suspension and disciplinary process.

Applying section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the authorities on constructive dismissal and trust and confidence, the tribunal concluded that the claimant resigned in reaction to the suspension and disciplinary proceedings, but that there had been no fundamental breach by the respondent. As a result, his resignation could not be construed as a dismissal. Both the unfair dismissal claim and the redundancy payment claim were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal treated the claimant's case as a constructive unfair dismissal claim. It found he resigned and had not been dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy and was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

20 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.