Case 3320909/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Bradbury (counsel) For the v Mr Stanway (consultant) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320909/2021
- Decision date
- 17 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Bradbury (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Jodie Smith began work for Hopkins Homes Limited on 14 September 2019 as a Field Sales Manager. The tribunal found that her early relationship with Mr Barnard was positive, but that management changed in 2020 when Mr Barnard was promoted and Ms Hanlon became her line manager. The claimant was furloughed during the Covid-19 pandemic, returned to site-based work, and later became subject to a more structured management style as sales targets and site performance pressures increased.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant perceived herself as being unfairly criticised, undermined and micro-managed after Ms Bullivant joined in October 2020, but it found that perception was not borne out objectively. It held that Ms Hanlon and Ms Bullivant were direct and robust managers who were trying to improve performance, not to single the claimant out or work against her. The tribunal found that several incidents, including the 2 November 2020 meeting, the April 2021 email exchange, and the 21 May 2021 telephone call, showed disagreements about working practices and performance feedback, but not conduct that was calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.
Applying the constructive dismissal authorities cited in the judgment, the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and therefore no constructive dismissal within s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It also rejected the wrongful dismissal claim for the same reason. The claimant resigned on 28 May 2021 and later gave notice to terminate immediately on 11 June 2021, but the tribunal held that the respondent’s conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach. The provisional remedy hearing listed for 13 January 2023 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal treated the unfair dismissal case as a constructive dismissal claim under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It found no repudiatory breach and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed on the same factual basis as the constructive dismissal claim; the tribunal found no contractual breach by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI; Mahmud v BCCI
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose
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.