Case 6028798/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kurdybelska v Staffline Recruitment Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028798/2025
- Decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge New Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kurdybelska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned on 20 March 2025 and alleged that this amounted to constructive unfair dismissal because her line manager had forced her to resign during a meeting by giving an ultimatum and making other coercive comments. The respondent denied this and said the manager had only given informal advance warning that a formal meeting about conduct or performance concerns would follow.
The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence about the disputed conversation. It found that the manager did not give the alleged ultimatum, did not say the meeting never happened, did not refuse a request to consult someone, did not make the alleged comments about finding something on the claimant, and did not offer a month's salary in lieu of notice as a goodwill gesture.
The tribunal concluded that the informal warning of a forthcoming formal process did not destroy or seriously damage mutual trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned voluntarily after being warned that a performance or conduct process would shortly begin, so the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed is not well founded and fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- fundamental breach of contract
- affirmation
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.