Case 2501933/2021 · Employment Tribunal
LORRAINE KERR v North Tyneside Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501933/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RODGER
- Venue
- NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CIVIL AND FAMILY TRIBUNAL CENTRE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
LORRAINE KERR
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Kerr was employed by North Tyneside Council as a Housing Officer from 20 June 2018 until she resigned on 13 August 2021. She alleged that her resignation followed a series of events starting with a Teams meeting on 10 December 2020 with managers Linda Herman and Anthony Howe, after which she went on sickness leave and did not return. The tribunal identified the issues as whether the Council breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and, if so, whether Mrs Kerr had affirmed the contract.
The tribunal found that the 10 December 2020 meeting became heated and exasperated on both sides, but did not amount to a breach of the implied term. It rejected Mrs Kerr's complaints about Mr Howe's attendance at that meeting, the absence of minutes, Mr Howe's telephone call on 14 December 2020, the lack of contact over the Christmas period, the Council asking through her union representative whether the grievance should proceed formally or informally, and three July 2021 return-to-work conversations with Mrs Redpath. The tribunal found no evidence of any breach by the Council.
The tribunal further stated that, even if there had been a breach, it would have found that Mrs Kerr affirmed the contract. It relied on the time between the main events complained of and the resignation, her use of the grievance procedure, engagement with HR and occupational health about a return to work, receipt of sick pay and counselling, and the July 2021 discussions about returning to work. The claim was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as an unfair dismissal claim pursued on a constructive dismissal basis. It was dismissed because no repudiatory breach was found and, alternatively, the tribunal would have found affirmation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- repudiatory breach of contract
- affirmed the contract
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.