Case 2600454/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S. Clark v Arden Coffee Sales Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600454/2021
- Decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Broughton Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S. Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal identified the case at the preliminary hearing as one of constructive unfair dismissal and holiday pay. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn at the start of the hearing. Most of the claimant's other alleged incidents were either not proved on a balance of probabilities or were not found to amount, either individually or cumulatively, to conduct that destroyed or seriously damaged trust and confidence.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been given a contract of employment or statement of particulars. It also found that the respondent's request on 27 March 2020 for the claimant to come in and do some painting while furloughed was an attempt to involve her in work during a period when furloughed employees were not meant to work, but it did not itself amount to a repudiatory breach because no pressure was applied and there was no adverse treatment when she refused.
The decisive event was the argument on 27 September 2020 at the claimant's late father's bungalow. The tribunal preferred the claimant's account over the respondent witnesses' differing accounts and found that Shaun Lawrence, acting as her employer, told her not to go into work because she was "done" and that they were fed up with her. Although the argument happened outside the workplace and outside working hours, the tribunal held that it became work-related when Shaun Lawrence introduced the claimant's continued employment into the dispute. It found that the comments were a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and that the claimant resigned because of that breach. The tribunal did not find that waiting about three weeks before resigning amounted to affirmation in the circumstances of this family business.
Remedy was awarded for unfair dismissal. The tribunal ordered a basic award of £4,738.50 and a compensatory award of £12,636, made up of £11,650 for financial losses up to the hearing, £500 for loss of statutory rights, and £486 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The total monetary award was £17,374.50, with a prescribed element of £11,650 and a balance of £5,724.50 under the recoupment provisions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well founded and awarded a basic award, compensatory award, and a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars. | Upheld | — | £17,375 |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn by the claimant at the start of the hearing and dismissed on that basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,375
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,739
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,636
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Post Office v Roberts
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.