Cases2406608/2023

Claimant v Forrest Fresh Foods Limited

2 June 2025Before Employment Judge LeachManchesterhybrid

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalsucceeded

Tribunal found the respondent fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence through covert surveillance of the claimant, fitting a secret tracker to his company car without justification, failing to address his grievances for months, and acting in a manner calculated to destroy trust. Claimant resigned in response to these breaches without affirming the contract.

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

Having found the claimant was constructively dismissed, the tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The respondent failed to show a potentially fair reason for the fundamental breaches that led to the resignation.

Facts

Claimant worked for respondent food distribution company from 2013, becoming commercial director in 2016. Relationship with majority shareholder (CC) deteriorated from late 2021. In February 2022, respondent instructed private investigators to conduct covert surveillance of claimant including fitting secret tracker to his company car. Claimant went on sick leave in April 2022 due to stress. Respondent sent letter in May 2022 alleging misconduct, suspending claimant, and notifying him of meeting to remove him as director. Claimant raised grievance which was not properly addressed. After 8 months of unsuccessful attempts to resolve matters, claimant resigned in February 2023.

Decision

Tribunal found claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed. The respondent's covert surveillance was unjustified and breached the implied term of trust and confidence, as did its failure to address the claimant's grievances. Despite 8-month gap between breach and resignation, claimant did not affirm the contract as he was on sick leave throughout, made clear he had not accepted the breach, and respondent itself treated employment as ended. No contributory fault. 20% ACAS uplift applied for failure to follow grievance procedure.

Practical note

Covert surveillance of employees including vehicle tracking must only be used in exceptional circumstances with proper justification and safeguards; speculative surveillance based on unsubstantiated concerns will breach trust and confidence and justify constructive dismissal even where there is a significant time gap before resignation if the employee has not affirmed the contract.

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+20%

Respondent failed to provide outcome to claimant's grievance and showed no sign of following compliant disciplinary procedure. 20% uplift applied.

Legal authorities cited

Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Limited [1981] ICR 666Lewis v Motorworld Garages Limited [1986] ICR 157Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC [2005] 1 All ER 75Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] IRLR 833Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703WA Goold (Pearmak) Limited v McConnell EAT/489/94Blackburn v Aldi Stores Limited UKEAT/0185/12Bournemouth University v Buckland [2010] ICR 908Chindove v William Morrisons Supermarket PLC UKEAT/0201/13/BALeaney v Loughborough University [2023] EAT 155

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)ERA 1996 s.123(6)TULRCA 1992 s.207ACompanies Act 2006 s.168ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
2406608/2023
Decision date
2 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
wholesale
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Commercial Director
Salary band
Under £15,000
Service
10 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No