Case 2408555/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Islam-Wright v Arts Council England and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408555/2022
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Panel members
- Mrs V Worthington, Ms S Howarth
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs A Islam-Wright
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the first respondent had grounds to view the claimant's spreadsheet comment as a matter of concern because of its impact on colleagues and wider employment relations. However, it concluded that the process adopted caused the first respondent to lose sight of its own disciplinary and other policies. The tribunal found that the investigation invitation and the handling of the claimant's Dignity at Work complaint damaged trust and confidence, and that Mr Ashcroft's 23 June 2022 letter was disproportionate and without proper cause.
The tribunal found a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence as at 23 June 2022, alternatively as part of the cumulative handling of the investigation. It found that the breach caused the claimant's resignation, that she had not affirmed the contract, and that the respondent did not argue a fair reason for dismissal if constructive dismissal was found. The claimant was therefore constructively dismissed and the dismissal was unfair.
The victimisation claim failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's support for the proposed grievance and her comment about homophobic and anti-trans views were not sufficiently specific allegations of an Equality Act 2010 contravention and did not fall within the section 27 catch-all provision. It therefore found there was no protected act.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was put as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. Liability only; remedy was reserved. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the claimant had not done a protected act within section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, so the victimisation complaints against both respondents failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- Omilaju last straw test
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- ACAS Code paragraph 46
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.