Case 2500702/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Michelle Muxworthy v Piramal Healthcare UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500702/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Michelle Muxworthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Michelle Muxworthy joined Piramal Healthcare UK Limited on 6 January 2020 as UK Head of Environment, Health and Safety. The tribunal accepted that her 2021 reviews were positive. After Terry Cooke became her line manager in November 2021, the relationship deteriorated. The tribunal found that the 26 January 2022 meeting and the pre-prepared "setting expectations" document contained serious and unwarranted criticism, imposed intrusive controls over her work pattern and movements, and were produced without a proper investigation of the factual basis for Mr Cooke's complaints.
The tribunal held that the respondent's conduct did not stop at that meeting. It found that the handling of the grievance in early February 2022, including Ms Hardy's suggestion of an exit strategy, the refusal to change the reporting line, the delay in arranging a grievance hearing, the refusal to hear the grievance remotely or in writing, and the email of 9 March 2022 about sickness contact and sick pay, cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The 9 March email was treated as the final straw. The claimant did not affirm the contract, and her resignation on 10 March 2022 amounted to a constructive dismissal within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996.
On reason and fairness, the respondent relied on capability, but the tribunal found no evidence of capability issues sufficient to support that case. It held that, even if capability had been a potentially fair reason, the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. On wrongful dismissal, the claimant was entitled to her three month notice entitlement and no notice payment had been made, so damages followed, with quantum left to the remedy hearing. The unlawful deduction claim failed: the tribunal held that the deduction of £5,782 from final wages on 31 March 2022 was authorised by a relevant contractual provision arising from the relocation arrangement recorded in the 18 November 2019 letter and the claimant's conduct.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996; the claimant's resignation on 10 March 2022 was treated as a dismissal. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to her three month contractual notice entitlement and that no notice payment had been made. Quantum was not determined in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deduction of £5,782 from final wages on 31 March 2022 was held authorised by a relevant contractual provision arising from the relocation arrangement, evidenced by the 18 November 2019 letter and the claimant's conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- Morrow v Safeway Stores
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Woods v WM Car Services
- Buckland v Bournemouth University
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 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.