Mr M Gough v Alexander Duckham and Co Ltd — 2021

The claimant joined the respondent on 1 September 2017 as "director: classic, motorsport and industrial" to help introduce the Duckham's brand into the classic car market. The tribunal found that he was recruited for his technical and product-market expertise and that, contrary to the respondent's case, the role was not always intended to be mainly sales-based. His original responsibilities included product introduction, supply chain management, technical queries, and broader management of the classic and industrial lines.

After Dominic Popham joined in September 2018, the claimant was told that he would report to him, and in February 2019 the organisation chart described the claimant as "Head of UK and Europe classic range" rather than the title in his contract. The tribunal found that this reflected the respondent's intended position, not a mere administrative error, and that it showed a reduction in the claimant's status. It also found that significant duties were removed from him: supply chain management went to Jennie Vickery, technical enquiries were redirected away from him, and a new purchase approval process required authorisation for spending over £250 each month. The tribunal accepted that some management changes had reasonable cause, but held that the reporting-line change, the loss of managerial responsibilities, and the reallocation of his work were not shown to be justified and cumulatively damaged trust and confidence.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 5 August 2019 because his role had, as he saw it, been reduced to basic sales and because he disliked the way the business was being run. It accepted that he had tried to negotiate a self-employed arrangement in response to those concerns, but held that the failure to agree that later arrangement did not break the causal link to the earlier breach. The claimant did not affirm the contract, and the breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence was an effective reason for his resignation. The tribunal therefore held that he had been constructively dismissed, and because the respondent did not pursue or prove a potentially fair reason for the dismissal, it was unfair. Remedy was deferred to the later hearing listed for 30 April 2021.