Case 6008417/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr L Leonard v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6008417/2024
- Decision date
- 28 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr L Leonard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a sole complaint of constructive unfair dismissal arising from disciplinary proceedings by the respondent that began in September 2023 and her resignation on 10 April 2024. She alleged a series of procedural issues which she said, individually or cumulatively, breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The Tribunal considered the alleged breaches individually and cumulatively. It found that none amounted to a fundamental breach of contract, and that the course of conduct as a whole did not reach the threshold of conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, although it accepted that there were some imperfections and mistakes.
The Tribunal also found, in the alternative, that any breaches did not cause the resignation because the claimant had already recognised by October 2023 that her position was untenable. It concluded that she was not constructively dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the sole complaint was constructive unfair dismissal and dismissed it because the claimant was not constructively dismissed. The supplied PDF text is truncated in the middle. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- Malik v BCCI SA
- Tullett Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers LP
- s.98 ERA 1996
- Savoia v Chiltern Herb Farms Ltd
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.