Claimant v Watson Woodhouse Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant resigned in response to her own error in mis-diarising a court deadline, which cannot be an act by the respondent and therefore cannot constitute a 'last straw'. Further, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was conducting an excessive workload or one that exceeded her full-time colleagues, and found she received significant support and assistance from her manager and colleagues. There was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had a PCP that 'required fee earners to run a full case load without assistance'. Evidence showed that fee earners were given assistance, the claimant was granted breaks from the new client rota, and she received significant amounts of assistance in various forms throughout the relevant period. The claim failed on the basis that no such PCP existed.
Facts
Mrs Lewis was a part-time (3 days per week) Legal Executive at a law firm with over 14 years' experience. She claimed she was required to manage an excessive full-time workload including two complex multitrack cases (Case A and Case B) without adequate support. In October 2023, she mis-diarised a court deadline and resigned shortly after, citing this as the 'last straw'. The tribunal heard extensive evidence that her manager, Sarah Magson, had repeatedly offered support, removed her from the new client rota, allocated a full-time assistant (Margaret Donaghy), provided junior solicitors to assist, and offered to transfer files. The claimant worked modest overtime (3-4 hours per week typically) and her caseload in July 2023 was around 39 active files (excluding debt files allocated to others).
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the 'last straw' relied upon—the claimant's own error in mis-diarising a deadline—was not an act by the respondent. Even if it were, the tribunal found no excessive workload and that the claimant received significant support throughout. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had a PCP requiring fee earners to run a full caseload without assistance; the evidence showed the opposite.
Practical note
An employee cannot rely on their own error as a 'last straw' for constructive dismissal; the tribunal will closely scrutinise claims of unsupported workload against contemporaneous documentary evidence showing repeated offers of assistance and support.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501180/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Legal Executive / Fee Earner (Civil Litigation)
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No