Cases2217740/2024

Claimant v Transport UK East Anglia Limited Trading As Greater Anglia

19 February 2025Before Employment Judge NicolleLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that none of the alleged breaches by the respondent, whether considered individually or cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal found that investigations into complaints against the claimant were reasonable; that lack of recognition for work achievements did not amount to a breach; that working hours concerns were not sufficiently evidenced; and that most alleged incidents were too old and had been affirmed by the claimant continuing in employment. The tribunal also found that the claimant's resignation was motivated by a general sense of dissatisfaction and that he was already seeking employment elsewhere, not in response to a repudiatory breach.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Fraud and Investigations Manager for nearly 12 years. He resigned in January 2024, claiming constructive dismissal based on a series of alleged breaches: lack of recognition for his fraud recovery work (circa £500,000), being subjected to unjust investigations following complaints from colleagues and his ex-wife, being expected to work excessive hours beyond his 37-hour contract, and alleged bias by HR. The immediate trigger was an investigation into his use of junior staff to contact his ex-wife to retrieve a staff travel pass, which she complained about. The claimant had been off sick with work and home-related stress from December 2023 and resigned before the investigation concluded.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim. It found that none of the alleged breaches, whether individually or cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The investigations were found to be reasonable responses to complaints; lack of recognition did not constitute a breach; working hours concerns were insufficiently evidenced; and most incidents were too old and had been affirmed by the claimant continuing in employment. The tribunal found the claimant resigned due to general dissatisfaction and because he was already seeking alternative employment, not in response to a repudiatory breach.

Practical note

A constructive dismissal claim based on multiple historical incidents will fail where the claimant has affirmed the contract by continuing in employment for substantial periods after each alleged breach, and where the final trigger incident (here, a reasonable investigation) does not itself constitute a breach capable of reviving earlier complaints.

Legal authorities cited

Frenkel Topping Ltd v King UKEAT/01/06/15/LAMalik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1981] IRLR 347Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1493Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703Bournemouth University v Buckland 2010 IRLR 445Tullett Prebon PLC v BGC Brokers LP [2011] IRLR 420Abbeycars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford UKEAT/0472/07/DA

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98(1)-(4)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.95(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
2217740/2024
Decision date
19 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Fraud and Investigations Manager
Service
12 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No