Cases1300070/2024

Claimant v Prysmian Cables and Systems Ltd

8 October 2025Before Employment Judge Edmondsin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim. The claimant alleged a last straw event in a letter dated 5 December 2023, but the tribunal found this letter could not constitute a last straw as it did not say her concerns would not be addressed, and in fact referred matters to Mr Petrus to respond. The claimant herself acknowledged there was nothing wrong with the letter. The tribunal also found the claimant had affirmed her contract by remaining in employment for several months after the grievance appeal outcome and had delayed resignation until December 2023.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim following dismissal of the constructive dismissal claim. As there was no constructive dismissal, there could be no wrongful dismissal.

Facts

The claimant resigned on 13 December 2023 after raising grievances about her treatment by her manager Mr Harris. She alleged excessive workload, overtime issues, and other management conduct. She had indicated her intention to resign in February 2023 but delayed doing so until December 2023, citing a letter dated 5 December 2023 as the last straw. The respondent denied the allegations and argued the claimant had affirmed her contract by remaining in employment for months after the grievance appeal outcome in September 2023.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both the constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. The tribunal found the letter dated 5 December 2023 could not constitute a last straw and that the claimant had affirmed her contract. On costs, the tribunal found the last straw allegation had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset and that the claimant acted unreasonably in making comments about cleaning contractors' eligibility to work in the UK. A further hearing will determine whether costs should be awarded and the amount.

Practical note

A claimant who alleges a last straw event must ensure the alleged conduct is capable of constituting a last straw and that they resign in reasonable proximity to it; making irrelevant and inappropriate comments about witnesses during a hearing may constitute unreasonable conduct justifying a costs award.

Legal authorities cited

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham [2013] IRLR 713Jilley v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust UKEAT/0584/06Opalkova v Acquire Care Ltd [2021] UKEAT/0056/21Millin v Capsticks Solicitors LLP [2014] UKEAT/0093/14Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] ICR 1Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420AQ Ltd v Holden [2012] UKEAT/0021/12/CEADyer v Secretary of State for Employment [1983] UKEAT 183/83Scott v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2004] ICR 1410Radia v Jefferies International Ltd EAT 0007/18

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 82Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 76Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 75Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 74

Case details

Case number
1300070/2024
Decision date
8 October 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
10
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
No
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No