Case 2302773/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S.Harcarikova v Happy Kombucha Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302773/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S.Harcarikova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned after a meeting on 10 January 2024 and alleged that the respondent's conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence. She relied on lack of notice of a formal meeting, an audio recording made without explanation, allegations about conduct and performance, alleged hostile shouting, and being called before other staff after the meeting.
The tribunal accepted that parts of the meeting would have upset and distressed the claimant and that the later gathering of staff was likely to make her anxious and upset again. It also found that some alleged events were not proved and accepted that the respondent intended to support the claimant when speaking to staff afterwards.
Applying the contractual test objectively, the tribunal found that the events, individually or cumulatively, were not sufficient to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was presented as unfair dismissal, but the judgment determined whether the claimant was constructively dismissed following her resignation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Pederson v Camden London Borough Council
- Malik v BCCI
- s.98(4) ERA
- Frenkel Topping Ltd v King
- Transco plc v O'Brien
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.