Case 6001628/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Dawn Mcnee v Whitakers Estate Agents Limited Heard: by CVP in the North East Region — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001628/2023
- Decision date
- 16 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dawn Mcnee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDawn Mcnee worked for Whitakers Estate Agents Limited from 1 September 2020 until 28 August 2023 as a Senior Residential Sales Valuer. At a preliminary hearing on 4 January 2024 she withdrew her disability discrimination complaint; the judgment records that a dismissal judgment was issued on that claim. The final hearing therefore addressed constructive unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages.
Applying s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal rejected the nine alleged breaches advanced by the claimant. It found that Louise Mennell had not made the alleged derogatory remark on 15 June 2023, that Andrew Whitaker's letter saying he would assume resignation was harsh but not a breach in context, that the temporary removal of email and IT access was a business-protective measure, and that requiring the claimant to return to the Sutton branch was reasonable because it was her normal workplace. The tribunal also found it was reasonable to ask her to consider apologising after comments she made about colleagues, that the respondent had not ignored her complaints about Ms Mennell, that the 24 July meeting was heated but did not amount to a breach, that the comment about her being in the right frame of mind had context, and that there had been no four-day failure to contact her.
Looking at the respondent's conduct cumulatively, the tribunal held it was not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and that it had reasonable and proper cause. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to July commission of £475 and an August quarterly bonus of £26.64, making £501.64 in total, but was paid only £129.46. It held that the resulting shortfall of £372.18 was an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered the respondent to pay that sum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant withdrew her disability discrimination complaint at the preliminary hearing on 4 January 2024; the judgment records that a dismissal judgment was issued on that claim. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was pleaded and decided as constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, no repudiatory breach, and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £372.18, being the shortfall between the claimant's commission/bonus entitlement and the sum paid in August 2023. | Upheld | — | £372 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £372
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in compulsory liquidation)
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 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.