Case 6008669/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. F Anedda v Oliveto & Olivo Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008669/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. F Anedda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cawthray, sitting alone at London South by video on 1 and 2 July 2025, heard the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against Oliveto & Olivo Ltd, where he had been employed as Head Chef from 1 June 2004. The issues, agreed between the represented parties, were whether the claimant had resigned at a meeting on 25 January 2024, whether he was expressly or constructively dismissed, and, if constructively dismissed, whether a series of matters (criticism in a 7 July 2023 email about the aftermath of a fire at the Oliveto restaurant, criticism said to relate to bereavement leave, and offers of an alternative Pasta Chef role on 19 June, 21 July, 31 July 2023 and 25 January 2024) cumulatively amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, with the 25 January 2024 meeting relied on as the last straw.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned during the 25 January 2024 meeting. In the alternative, considering the constructive dismissal case, the judge found the 7 July 2023 email did not as a matter of fact criticise the claimant for taking bereavement leave, and that the comments made about his conduct following the fire were fair in the circumstances. The offers of the Pasta Chef role at the same basic pay, made after the claimant's usual place of work had been closed by fire, were not unreasonable, and nothing said at the 25 January 2024 meeting could be relied on as a last straw.
The judge concluded that neither individually nor cumulatively did the matters relied upon amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the respondent had not conducted itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. Having found no repudiatory breach, it was unnecessary to consider the reason for the claimant's resignation. The claim of unfair dismissal was held not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim encompassed both express dismissal under s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996 and constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c). Tribunal found the claimant resigned at the 25 January 2024 meeting and, in the alternative, that the respondent had not committed any fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, whether individually or cumulatively. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- last straw doctrine
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.