Case 2601837/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Tapomwa v NUH Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601837/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Representations
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Tapomwa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned without notice on 14 July 2023 and alleged that the respondent had fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The alleged last straw was the claimant receiving, on 9 March 2023, a second version of a report dated 13 February 2023 about a workplace incident.
The tribunal applied the guidance in Kaur and found that the claimant had affirmed her contract after the alleged last act. It relied on matters including the five-month delay before resignation, the claimant continuing to work for a period, receiving sick pay, not making her objection clear until May 2023, taking part in meetings, attending occupational health, and discussing possible deployment. Because the claim failed at affirmation, the tribunal did not need to determine the remaining Kaur questions, and dismissed the constructive dismissal claim and the related notice pay claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described the claim as constructive unfair dismissal under s98 ERA 1996 and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was for failure to pay notice pay and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s98 ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Kaur step-by-step approach
- Bashir v Brillo Manufacturing Company [1979] IRLR 295
- balance of probabilities
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.