Case 8000339/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Howieson v Implantsdentist Ltd t/a — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000339/2025
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Howieson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Howieson had worked at Great Junction Dental Practice since 17 February 2008. After the practice was sold on 24 July 2024, the tribunal found that her principal receptionist role was effectively removed without warning or consultation, that new staff took over reception, and that she was left without a clear role. It accepted her evidence, and that of Mrs Siersch, over the respondent's case that her role continued as before.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant had ongoing difficulties with Mrs Iqbal and, more generally, with the way she was treated by colleagues after the transfer. It found that she was ignored, excluded, and treated rudely, and that the respondent failed to address her concerns despite assurances that it would do so. The claimant raised those concerns in meetings on 4 September 2024 and 3 October 2024, and in a WhatsApp exchange on 18 September 2024, seeking clarity about who was responsible for management and how the practice was to be run.
The claimant resigned on 26 October 2024 after discovering a salary underpayment of about £300 and receiving an explanation that her hours were lower on some Fridays. The tribunal treated the underpayment and the way it was communicated as the last straw, but it also held that the earlier conduct, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. It found that the removal of her role and status, the failure to deal with her concerns, and the unresolved treatment by colleagues destroyed or seriously damaged mutual trust and confidence, and that she resigned in response to that breach.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed. It rejected the respondent's submissions on contribution and Polkey, finding no unreasonable conduct by the claimant and no basis to reduce the award for failure to raise a grievance before resigning. For remedy, the tribunal accepted a gross weekly pay of £630 and 16 years' service for a basic award of £15,120. It assessed compensatory loss to the hearing at £9,534, added £600 for loss of statutory rights, and made no award for future loss, producing a compensatory award of £10,134.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Sole claim for constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, rejected reductions for contribution and Polkey, and awarded a basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £25,254 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,254
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £15,120
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,134
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s98 ERA
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.