Case 6020412/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Luke Hackney v London Borough of Hackney — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020412/2025
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Suzanne Palmer
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Luke Hackney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant resigned with notice on 14 February 2025, effective 14 March 2025, and alleged that he had been constructively dismissed following a number of alleged fundamental breaches of contract. The tribunal considered allegations including confidentiality breaches, management and communication of a restructure, health and safety concerns about a fire door, and the handling of the Claimant's grievance.
The tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not dismissed by the Respondent. His complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was therefore dismissed.
The Claimant's holiday pay complaint concerned a deduction of 10.99 hours from his final salary for alleged overpaid annual leave. He accepted that the Respondent was entitled to recover the sum as an overpayment and withdrew the complaint, which was dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as Unfair (Constructive) Dismissal and finds that the Claimant was not dismissed by the Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint was described as unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay and was dismissed on withdrawal after the Claimant accepted the Respondent was entitled to recover the overpayment from final salary. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- implied term of trust and confidence
- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 14 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.