Claimant v Briggate Service Garage Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim for failure to provide itemized pay statements was withdrawn by the Claimant before the tribunal reached a determination on the merits.
The tribunal found that the Claimant had not satisfied even the evidential burden of showing that the reason for the alleged dismissal was TUPE-related. There was no evidence that the prospective sale constituted a TUPE transfer (the respondent claimed it was a share sale only). Further, the Claimant affirmed the contract and did not resign in response to a subsisting repudiatory breach.
The tribunal found that although the Respondent committed a fundamental breach by telling the Claimant her job would not be safe and she would be replaced when the sale went through, the Claimant affirmed that breach by continuing to work for the next 7 weeks. The 'last straw' relied upon — the email of 30 August 2024 requiring her return to the office after the sale fell through — was objectively reasonable and did not contribute to any breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. She therefore did not resign in response to a subsisting repudiatory breach.
Facts
Mrs Hill worked for a small family-run garage business for over 20 years as Office Manager. In July 2024, the owner (Mr Cornell) told her he was selling the business and her job would not be safe because the buyer wanted his daughter to take over her role. The Claimant agreed to work from home until the anticipated sale completion at the end of August 2024. On 30 August 2024, after the sale fell through, the Respondent asked her to return to the office the following Monday. She resigned on 2 September 2024, claiming constructive and automatic unfair dismissal. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and has since ceased trading.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The tribunal found that although the Respondent committed a fundamental breach by telling the Claimant her job would not be safe, she affirmed that breach by continuing to work for 7 weeks. The email requiring her return after the sale collapsed was objectively reasonable and did not constitute a 'last straw'. She therefore did not resign in response to a subsisting repudiatory breach. The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the Claimant did not prove the transaction was a TUPE transfer.
Practical note
A long-service employee who agrees to continue working after learning of a fundamental breach (such as being told their job will not transfer) will be found to have affirmed the contract, and subsequent objectively reasonable conduct by the employer (such as requiring a return to normal duties after a sale falls through) cannot constitute a 'last straw' justifying constructive dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300003/2025
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Office Manager
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister