Mr Kevin Babstock v Advanced New Technology Ltd — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Mr Kevin Babstock's constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against Advanced New Technology Ltd. Mr Babstock had worked as an Account Manager from 1 July 2020 and resigned on 4 September 2024. The tribunal found that the employer had not fundamentally breached his contract and that he had not been constructively dismissed.

Mr Babstock alleged that Managing Director John Brooking had subjected him to bullying, intimidation and a hostile working environment. The tribunal considered extracts from covert recordings in their wider context and accepted the respondent's evidence. It found that the discussions concerned sales, teamwork and completing projects while the business faced financial difficulties. Although some words were harsh and direct, and profanity was used, the tribunal did not find that the conduct objectively amounted to bullying, abusive behaviour or a toxic working environment. At the meeting on 22 July 2024, it found that Mr Brooking had stopped an inappropriate line of questioning, perhaps abruptly but understandably in the circumstances.

Applying the objective test for breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal found no cumulative course of conduct amounting to a fundamental breach. The interaction on 4 September 2024, relied upon as the last straw, added nothing capable of establishing such a breach. It also found that Mr Babstock had first raised the concerns relied upon in his claim after his resignation, so Mr Radcliffe had not previously been aware of them.

The tribunal rejected the argument that records showing extensive homeworking established a contractual right to work from home. It accepted that homeworking required agreement, that the role was office-based and that the company's systems restricted remote access. After resigning, Mr Babstock proposed working his notice on terms including limited office attendance and remote work when Mr and Mrs Brooking were present. The respondent required him to attend the office. The tribunal found that Mr Radcliffe had not unequivocally waived that requirement and that Mr Babstock could not insist on his proposed arrangements.

The tribunal found nothing to support the allegation that the subsequent grievance investigation was a sham. Mr Radcliffe interviewed five staff members and concluded that the allegations were unfounded. The respondent mistakenly believed that the investigation documents had been supplied to Mr Babstock through solicitors. The tribunal also noted that the investigation took place after his resignation.

The tribunal declined to draw an adverse inference from alleged destruction or non-disclosure of electronic evidence. It accepted Mr Radcliffe's evidence that the respondent had supplied its documents to its former solicitors and that he understood they had been disclosed. It also accepted that deleted material had been removed through Microsoft Office 365's automatic settings and found no breach of the respondent's disclosure obligations on the evidence before it.