Case 3312431/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Chigona v Mentaur Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312431/2023
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Chigona
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned with immediate effect on 25 May 2023 and alleged that the respondent had failed to respond to concerns about a colleague, failed to investigate an alleged assault by that colleague, and handled her grievance unfairly and dishonestly. The respondent said its managers had responded to the concerns, investigated the incident, and dealt appropriately with the grievance.
The tribunal found that the respondent pursued appropriate and reasonable investigations into the complaints made at the time, and that the managers who dealt with the grievance and appeal reached reasonable decisions on the evidence available to them and explained those decisions clearly. Although the tribunal described the delay in informing the claimant of the grievance outcome as inexplicable and unexplained, it noted that the claimant did not rely on that delay in pursuing her claim.
The tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish a repudiatory breach of contract, a cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, or a genuine last straw leading to resignation. It also found that the claimant had affirmed her contract during the relevant period. The constructive dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as constructive unfair dismissal and states that it fails and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- objective test
- repudiatory breach of contract
- implied term of trust and confidence
- last straw
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.