Case 2500300/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jessica Thorpe v Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500300/2023
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC in person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Jessica Thorpe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Band 3 Nursing Assistant who had begun a nursing degree apprenticeship, was suspended on 30 April 2020 following matters connected to the death of patient X. The tribunal did not make findings on the underlying allegations themselves. The suspension continued until the claimant resigned on 11 November 2022. The tribunal found that the respondent breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence through the prolonged suspension, by failing to provide a disciplinary outcome letter after the 21 July 2021 disciplinary hearing, by failing to explain the continued suspension thereafter, and by not addressing the claimant's grievance lodged on 21 October 2021.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not affirm the contract before resigning; the period between 20 October and 11 November 2022 was a reasonable time for her to consider whether a successful return to work was realistic. The respondent did not advance a case that any dismissal was for a potentially fair reason under s.98 ERA, so the claimant was unfairly (constructively) dismissed under s.95(1)(c) ERA.
On the wages claim, the tribunal held that during suspension the claimant was contractually entitled to 'full pay with average enhancements', which on its ordinary meaning included enhancements for her usual shift pattern and an amount reflecting average overtime, but did not extend to bank work. The shortfall amounted to a series of unlawful deductions. The respondent was also in breach of contract by continuing the suspension from 10 August 2021 at the latest. Quantum of remedy was reserved.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed within s.95(1)(c) and s.98 ERA 1996. The respondent did not advance a case that any dismissal was for a potentially fair reason. Remedy not quantified per claim in the liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Linked to the constructive dismissal finding; tribunal held the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found claimant was contractually entitled during suspension to 'full pay with average enhancements'; respondent's failure to include average enhancements/overtime in suspension pay amounted to unlawful deductions. Quantum to be determined at remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal held the respondent was in breach of the implied term of trust and confidence by continuing to suspend the claimant from 10 August 2021 at the latest. Recoverable loss reserved to remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Article 3 Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.