Ms S Gurm v Williams Lea UK Ltd — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Ms S Gurm's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal (notice pay) claims against Williams Lea Limited because she had not been dismissed. She was employed from 11 October 2018 until her resignation on 21 March 2025, working latterly as a Personal Assistant supporting two partners and four fee earners at Pennington Manches Cooper. She resigned in response to Jo Griffiths' workload review email, alleging that it was the final straw in a course of conduct breaching the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The tribunal found that the respondent had heard her workload concerns and provided support, including through her former Team Leader, Ms Finch, and another PA, Hayley Crewe. The claimant wanted a junior employee whom she could train to take over tasks, but the absence of that particular support did not establish that support had not been provided. The tribunal also took account of time records showing utilisation around 90%, contractual hours of 37.5 per week and only one day's sickness absence in the final two years. It found that no grievance had been raised before her employment ended. Her email of 28 November 2024 formed part of an ongoing discussion about dropping a fee earner, which managers had escalated and taken steps to address.

The requests for workload data in 2022 and 2024 were reasonable management instructions and did not breach the contract. The tribunal found that examining the work being undertaken was a necessary starting point for assessing the request for support, with the claimant the primary source of that information. Asking again approximately two years later was reasonable, particularly because her later concerns focused on the complexity of tasks rather than solely their volume.

The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant's initial omission from a lunch invitation supported a contractual breach. The lunch was neither a work function nor a quasi-work function, and she had no reasonable expectation of being invited through her employment. She declined the invitation subsequently extended to her. The tribunal found no resulting detriment or adverse effect on her working environment.

The tribunal found that the 21 March 2025 email was professional and appropriate when read objectively. The review covered only part of the claimant's workload because she had refused reasonably requested access to her personal work inbox. That refusal limited the assessment. The tribunal rejected her allegations that the email blamed her, was belittling or degrading, or showed that the review had been undertaken in bad faith with a predetermined intention to refuse support.

Applying Western Excavating (ECC) v Sharp and the objective trust and confidence and last straw principles set out in Waltham Forest v Omilaju, the tribunal found no constructive dismissal. The email did not amount to a repudiatory breach and could not constitute a last straw contributing to a cumulative breach. The unfair dismissal and notice pay claims therefore failed. The unlawful deduction of wages complaint was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal. The judgment records no monetary award.