Case 6020221/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gary Mayo v NHS South East London ICB — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020221/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Da Costa
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gary Mayo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of unfair constructive dismissal. It found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed within the meaning of the common law as codified in section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that there was no breach by the respondent of any fundamental term of the contract. It stated that the respondent's desire to change the claimant's working pattern was founded on a legitimate business need and was the subject of extensive consultation. Because the claimant was not constructively dismissed or otherwise dismissed, the questions of potentially fair reason and fairness under section 98(4) did not arise.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as unfair constructive dismissal and dismisses it because the claimant was not constructively dismissed; no separate remedy was awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.