Mrs Amy Clayton v Advisory Insurance Brokers Limited — 2025

Mrs Amy Clayton, an Executive Assistant, resigned on 1 August 2023 and claimed that the Respondent’s conduct entitled her to treat the contract as terminated. The tribunal identified three strands to the claim: the long period in which she covered the departed PA’s work, the Executive Assistant restructuring and recruitment process, and an alleged final straw involving a colleague’s interview and offer for the new role. It accepted that the Claimant was unhappy about both the PA cover and the restructuring process, and that her grievance was partly upheld after she had resigned, but it found that the grievance outcome was not relevant to whether she had already been constructively dismissed.

On the PA cover issue, the tribunal found the Respondent had not replaced the PA because of the restructuring of the Executive Assistant team, that the Claimant had been unfit for work in March 2023 due to her workload, and that she was aggrieved at covering two roles for a prolonged period. It also found, however, that although the Respondent’s grievance report later acknowledged a lack of appreciation, escalation and communication, that did not objectively amount to conduct calculated or likely to destroy mutual trust and confidence. The tribunal held that the Claimant chose to move on after securing alternative employment, and that the PA cover issue was a factor in her resignation but not a repudiatory breach.

On the restructuring issue, the tribunal found the new Executive Assistant Team Leader role was not limited to internal candidates, that the Claimant could have applied for it, and that the failure to answer her questions before she resigned was due to a genuine oversight by Ms Byrne rather than deliberate conduct. It found the Claimant’s evidence was weakened by the lack of an audit trail and by her repeated use of words such as “numerous” and “repeatedly” without documentary support. Applying the Malik test and the approach in Western Excavating and Woods, the tribunal held that the Respondent’s conduct, whether looked at individually or cumulatively, did not meet the threshold for a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The alleged final straw also failed because the Claimant resigned before the interview and offer process for the colleague, Ms Bradshaw, had taken place. The tribunal therefore dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim in full. No compensation or other remedy was awarded, and the tribunal said it did not need to go on to consider affirmation or fairness under s98(4) ERA 1996.