Case 2407352/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Imms (1) Mr R Latham (2) v A One Distribution (UK) Limited HELD AT: Liverpool — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407352/2023
- Decision date
- 12 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Imms (1) Mr R Latham (2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBoth claimants, a sales manager (Mr Imms) and a sales adviser (Mr Latham) employed by A One Distribution (UK) Limited, resigned in April 2023 following a dispute over the recall of non-UK regulatory power cables and proposals by Mr Naughton (for the respondent) that members of the sales team should each pay approximately £19,000 towards the cost of the recall, together with a proposed change to the sales team's commission structure on 30 March 2023. The tribunal found that the combination of these matters, including blame attributed to the claimants for the cable purchase, the demand for payment, threats of deduction from salary, the proposed commission change and Mr Naughton's manner of dealings with each claimant, amounted to conduct that undermined the implied term of trust and confidence.
Employment Judge Johnson concluded that the respondent's behaviour, considered cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that each claimant resigned in response to that breach, with the proposed commission structure change of 30 March 2023 operating as the final straw. Neither claimant was found to have affirmed the contract before resigning. The tribunal accepted that Mr Naughton had not intended to dismiss Mr Latham despite refusing to accept the withdrawal of his notice. Both complaints of constructive unfair dismissal were therefore well-founded.
Procedurally, the tribunal refused the first claimant's application to amend to add a section 100 ERA 1996 health and safety automatic unfair dismissal complaint and refused an application for further disclosure of Skype messages, in each case for the reasons set out in the judgment. The redundancy payment, unlawful deduction from wages and (in the first claimant's case) whistleblowing complaints had been withdrawn at an earlier preliminary hearing. Remedy, including any notice pay issues, was reserved to a one-day remedy hearing before Judge Johnson on a date to be confirmed.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | First claimant (Mr M Imms): complaint of constructive unfair dismissal well-founded. Remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant (Mr M Imms): the tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed following his constructive dismissal. Remedy reserved to remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | First claimant's notice pay (wrongful dismissal/notice pay) complaint: tribunal recorded the agreed notice period and reserved any failure to pay correct notice pay to the remedy hearing rather than making a substantive liability finding in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Second claimant (Mr R Latham): complaint of constructive unfair dismissal well-founded. Remedy reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant (Mr R Latham): tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed following constructive dismissal. Remedy reserved to remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant's notice pay complaint: agreed notice period recorded; any failure to pay correct notice pay reserved to the remedy hearing. | Other | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B(1)(d) 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.