Case 2500544/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Julia Russell v Kidd and Spoor Solicitors Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500544/2019
- Decision date
- 22 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Members
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs C E Hunter, Mr K A Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Julia Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Russell was employed by Kidd and Spoor Solicitors Limited as a director and family solicitor. She resigned on 22 November 2018 after accepting alternative employment elsewhere and gave three months' notice. The tribunal found that, by the time of the appraisal on 21 November 2018, she had already decided to leave and had applied for the new role. It also found that she had raised no grievances during her employment and that the matters complained of in her further and better particulars were largely historic.
On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 95 ERA 1996, the mutual trust and confidence principle, and the last-straw authorities cited by the parties, including Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd and Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council. It held that Mr Dilks' request at the appraisal that she help resolve a staff dispute at the West Road office was a perfectly reasonable and innocuous request in the context of her role as the most senior solicitor at that office. Because that act could not amount to a last straw, the tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim. It added that, in any event, the older complaints were affirmed and did not amount to a fundamental breach.
On the wages claim, the tribunal relied on paragraph 10.4 of the service agreement, which stated that no bonus was due if employment terminated before the date when a bonus might otherwise have been payable. It found that the letters said to vary the bonus arrangements were only notifications of targets, not contractual variations, and that no valid written variation had been made under clause 29. The tribunal concluded that the bonus was not properly payable because Ms Russell had resigned before the end of the relevant financial year, so there had been no unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996.
The direct sex discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant on the second day of the hearing, and the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996; dismissed because the tribunal found no last straw and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the bonus was not properly payable under paragraph 10.4 of the service agreement, so there was no unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant on the morning of the second day of the hearing; the tribunal recorded that it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.98 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.