Case 2501180/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Lewis v Watson Woodhouse Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501180/2024
- Decision date
- 2 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- Teesside
- Panel members
- Ms C Hunter, Ms P Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Lewis was an experienced civil litigation fee earner working three days per week. The tribunal accepted that between September 2021 and the end of her employment she experienced anxiety and menopause-related symptoms, and that she repeatedly raised workload concerns with Sarah Magson (SM). It also found that SM responded to those concerns with assistance, including a dedicated assistant, overtime payments, breaks from the new client rota, and the reallocation of debt work and other tasks.
The tribunal did not accept the claimant's case that she had been required to manage an excessive workload without support or that Cases A and B were outside her competence. On the contemporaneous evidence, it found that from March 2022 to termination she was likely to have had an active caseload of around 40 files, many of which were within her experience, rather than the higher figures she suggested. It also found that she had assistance from colleagues and counsel on the multitrack cases, and that SM repeatedly offered further help, including the possibility of transferring files and reverting to a standard caseload.
For constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant resigned in response to her own error in mis-diarising the 3 October 2023 court deadline. It said that error was not conduct by the respondent and therefore could not amount to the last straw relied on for a repudiatory breach. The tribunal also rejected the wider allegation that the respondent insisted on an excessive workload or left the claimant without support, and it dismissed the constructive dismissal claim.
For the reasonable adjustments complaint, the tribunal held that it was not satisfied the respondent had a provision, criterion or practice requiring fee earners to run a full caseload without assistance. It found that fee earners were given assistance in practice, that no request to take a break from the new client rota had been refused, and that the claimant herself had been given substantial support in relation to her work. That claim was also dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal held that the claimant's own mis-diarising of the 3 October 2023 deadline could not amount to conduct by the respondent and was not a last straw attributable to the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had a PCP requiring fee earners to run a full caseload without assistance, and it found that the claimant had in fact received substantial support. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp
- Morrow v Safeway Stores Ltd
- Malik v Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- Marshall v McPherson Ltd
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.