Mr S Southern v Inspectorate Limited t/a Roch NDT Services — 2021

The tribunal found that from late 2021 Mr Hall and Mr Southern were negotiating, but never reached a binding agreement, about the terms on which Mr Southern would be rewarded if the business were sold. At the York meeting on 7 October 2021 they discussed possible figures and a future role, and later draft contracts followed in March and April 2022. The tribunal found that the £15,000 paid in October and November 2021 was a personal goodwill payment to Mr and Mrs Southern, not a contractual advance or a sum repayable if no sale or no signed contract followed.

On the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct, looked at individually and cumulatively, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the delay in producing draft documents, the inclusion of post-termination restrictions, the suspension in April 2022, and the allegations in the suspension letter were each supported by reasonable and proper cause in the circumstances found by the tribunal. The tribunal also found that the investigation was paused for health reasons, that Mrs Southern's suspension was justified by her own conduct, and that the respondent had not alienated the Claimant or failed to honour a binding promise to pay £100,000 on sale.

The tribunal therefore dismissed both the constructive unfair dismissal claim and the wrongful dismissal claim because Mr Southern resigned rather than being dismissed, and because he was not contractually entitled to terminate without notice. The separate pension deduction complaint was withdrawn during the hearing. The holiday pay claim succeeded: applying the contractual clause and the statutory minimum, the tribunal found that by 28 May 2022 the Claimant had accrued 11.4 days' holiday worth £2,178.99, that he had been paid £1,852.59, and that the outstanding balance was £326.41. The Respondent's employer's contract claim also failed: the alleged £15,000 repayment term was rejected, and the notice-loss and recruitment-cost claims were not proved to flow from the breach alleged or to be recoverable on the evidence.