Case 2601287/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Cannon v South Normanton Community Interest Company At a Full hearing By CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601287/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Cannon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Cannon was employed as Centre Manager at Post Mill from 1 September 2011 until she resigned with immediate effect on 14 January 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent had received an HMRC corporation tax demand for £74,517.71, had already been discussing the liability before July 2019, and had instructed Mazars to advise on the sums due. At the 29 July 2019 board meeting the minutes recorded that Mazars had assessed the tax liability and advised a maximum payment of £20,000, and the tribunal rejected the suggestion that the company intended to suppress the tax issue.
The protected disclosure detriment claim failed on jurisdiction. The ET1 was presented on 23 April 2020, outside the three-month period for the July 2019 events, and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time because Mrs Cannon was able to raise detailed grievances in September 2019 and had union support. The tribunal also held that, had it had jurisdiction, the evidence did not show that the alleged detriments were caused by the disclosure; on the tribunal's findings the suspension followed a perceived breach of confidentiality, not the HMRC disclosure.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the alleged office search was not proved, the company had power to suspend, and the grievance process was independent and thorough apart from not identifying the precise confidentiality allegation. The tribunal accepted that the disciplinary investigation was supported by evidence and, applying Malik, Kaur and Omilaju, treated HR Dept's 10 January 2020 letter as a final straw but not itself a repudiatory breach. It found no cumulative breach of trust and confidence. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A also failed because the protected disclosure played no conscious or subconscious part in the company's conduct; the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, the holiday pay claim was withdrawn, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under s.48 ERA 1996 to hear the protected disclosure detriment claim; it also said that, had it had jurisdiction, it would not have found the alleged detriments were caused by the disclosure. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal rejected the alleged office search, found the company had power to suspend, and held that the suspension, grievance handling and disciplinary process did not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a repudiatory breach under Malik, Kaur and Omilaju. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found the 29 July 2019 disclosure played no conscious or subconscious part in the company's conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim for completeness after the constructive unfair dismissal and s.103A claims failed; the contractual notice period was treated as 8 weeks but no notice pay was awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim of unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay was withdrawn by the claimant in final submissions. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.48 ERA 1996
- Malik term of trust and confidence
- Kaur test
- Omilaju final straw test
- s.103A ERA 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.