Case 2404495/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs J K Heald v Fogg, Whittingham and Casserley, Dental Surgeons — 2019

Case reference: 2404495/2018
Decision date: 25 March 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sherratt REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs J K Heald

Respondent

Fogg, Whittingham and Casserley, Dental Surgeons

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs J K Heald brought a constructive dismissal claim after resigning on 18 September 2017 with notice to 19 October 2017. The respondents applied to strike out the claim under rule 37, or alternatively for a deposit order under rule 39, arguing that the pleaded breaches were not repudiatory and that the final-straw allegation could not amount to a fundamental breach. The tribunal accepted that the final-straw allegation concerned the respondents' failure to mark the claimant's 25th work anniversary, which had allegedly been ignored after a colleague's similar milestone had been celebrated.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal did not determine the merits of the constructive dismissal claim. It refused the respondents' application under rule 37 to strike out the claim or under rule 39 for a deposit order, finding that the pleaded last-straw incident could, subject to evidence, contribute to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.	Other	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,200; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

5 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.