Case 2600224/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Nicholls v Sciensus Pharma Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2600224/2023
- Decision date
- 19 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Nicholls
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the final hearing on 25 and 26 March 2024, the Tribunal dismissed Ms Nicholls' unfair dismissal claim. It found that the meeting on 19 August 2022 was not a fundamental breach of contract, that none of the other matters relied upon breached the implied duty of trust and confidence, and that the claimant was not dismissed.
On reconsideration, Ms Nicholls challenged the findings concerning when she accepted new employment and whether she had time to prepare presentation slides for the 19 August meeting. Employment Judge Shore accepted that the finding about when she accepted the new job had not been clearly expressed, but concluded that this did not affect the findings that there was no fundamental breach of contract and no dismissal. The Tribunal maintained its finding that the claimant could have read the presentation before the meeting and dismissed the reconsideration application because there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as unfair dismissal. It concerned whether alleged breaches of contract, including an alleged final straw on 19 August 2022, meant that the claimant had been dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- fundamental breach of contract
- implied duty of trust and confidence
- final straw
- no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked
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.