Case 2405491/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Winterbourne v The Barrowford Surgery — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405491/2021
- Decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Winterbourne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Winterbourne had worked at the practice for about 21 years and was the practice manager. After she went off sick in September 2019, the respondent discovered a large backlog of unopened emails and other management tasks that the tribunal found had not been actioned, including insurance, NHS paperwork, flu jab payment and DBS checks. On 4 November 2019 Dr Ashworth held an informal without prejudice meeting with her. The tribunal held this was a protected conversation within s.111A ERA 1996 and found it was aimed at ending the employment relationship on agreed terms because he had lost trust and confidence in her role performance.
The claimant's solicitors then sent grievance correspondence on 12 December 2019, 13 January 2020 and 30 September 2020. The tribunal found Dr Ashworth did not repudiate the contract by not processing those grievances in the way suggested by the claimant; he discussed the first grievance with staff, considered the correspondence to be part of settlement negotiations, and continued to invite welfare and ill-health review meetings. It found the claimant refused to attend meetings, insisted that contact be through solicitors, and did not provide a medical report or prognosis despite being offered telephone, written or represented attendance options.
The tribunal held that the respondent's conduct, viewed as a whole, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found the claimant did not resign in response to any breach, had affirmed the contract by remaining on sick leave and continuing negotiations for around 15 months, and in any event would have been dismissed fairly for gross misconduct and/or ill-health capability within a month. The constructive unfair dismissal claim and the wrongful dismissal claim were both dismissed, no monetary award was made, and the tribunal also found contributory fault and that any compensation would have been reduced to nil if it had been payable.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. Tribunal held the 4 November 2019 discussion was a protected s.111A conversation, found no repudiatory breach in the handling of grievances, welfare meetings or ill-health process, and held the claimant had affirmed the contract before resigning. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay claim. Tribunal held the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss for gross misconduct and, alternatively, that dismissal would have been fair in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111A ERA 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit / Mahmud v Bank of Credit
- Paul Buckland objective test
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages last straw doctrine
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest last straw doctrine
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- W E Cox Toner v Crook
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
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.