Case 1802056/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Jodie Dutchman v JD Sports Gyms Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1802056/2025
- Decision date
- 27 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edwards Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jodie Dutchman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, General Manager of the respondent's Huddersfield gym, brought a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal arising from events in late October 2024 following a failed external audit. She relied on three matters as cumulatively breaching the implied term of mutual trust and confidence: being told by her line manager Ms Bonia on 29 October 2024 that she would face a disciplinary and would likely lose her job; being given an alternative of accepting a lower-graded role at a different location, with repeated calls for an answer in under 24 hours; and the submission of a change of position form to HR without her signature.
Employment Judge Edwards found that each of the three matters was done with reasonable and proper cause and was not, objectively, calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. The claimant was already on a live final written warning for similar misconduct, the further audit failure was a legitimate trigger for disciplinary action, and the alternative role was offered as a means of preserving her employment. The change of position form had been submitted on the basis of what the judge found to be the claimant's consent communicated on 29-30 October, and it was withdrawn promptly when she changed her mind. Taken cumulatively the conduct still did not amount to a breach.
The tribunal also found, for completeness, that the claimant did not resign in response to any alleged breach. Her first resignation on 21 December 2024 followed her securing alternative employment with a competitor during sickness absence; her second resignation on 6 January 2025 was to enable her to start the new role before her notice period expired. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (individually or cumulatively), no fundamental breach, and that the claimant did not resign in response to any alleged breach. The judgment records the complaint as 'unfair dismissal' but the case was determined on constructive dismissal principles. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.