< Back to Cases
Constructive Dismissal Appeal
Rad Kohanzad represented Miss M Mettle in her appeal against the Employment Tribunal's rejection of her constructive dismissal claim against HCRG Care Ltd. The appeal concerned changes to her work rota, her suspension over comments made in an online interview, and a proposed temporary move to a different workplace. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed all three grounds. It held that the Employment Tribunal had given adequate reasons for its conclusions on suspension and the temporary move, and could not be criticised for failing to consider implied contractual terms that had not been argued before it.
Background and procedural history
Miss Mettle worked as a rapid response nurse from January 2017. She resigned on 19 November 2022, relying on a series of events between July and November that she said breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and amounted to constructive dismissal. She also brought claims of racial and religious harassment and discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal rejected her claims. Its decision included findings about three events challenged in the EAT appeal:
Changes to her rota: Her usual pattern was to work alternate weekends, but her manager changed the rota so that she was required to work consecutive weekends.
Suspension: In September 2022, the employer suspended her after reviewing online videos in which she discussed her book and made comments that raised safeguarding and professional-conduct concerns.
Temporary relocation: After the suspension was lifted, the employer proposed that she return in a non-patient-facing role at Gravesend while the investigation continued. The longer commute was one of her objections, and she resigned before the employer had fully responded to her concerns.
The EAT allowed three grounds to proceed to a full hearing. They challenged the Employment Tribunal's treatment of the rota change, the adequacy of its reasons for finding the suspension justified, and its treatment of the proposed temporary relocation.
The legal issues
The appeal raised two distinct questions that frequently arise in challenges to Employment Tribunal decisions.
First, had the Tribunal given adequate reasons for its conclusions? Under the established principles associated with Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, reasons must enable the parties to understand why they won or lost and allow an appellate court to assess whether the decision involved an error of law. Reasons need not address every point in exhaustive detail, but must explain the Tribunal's essential reasoning.
Second, could the Tribunal be criticised for failing to decide contractual arguments that had not been advanced at the hearing? Miss Mettle argued on appeal that her working arrangements gave her implied contractual rights concerning weekend working and her normal workplace. The EAT considered whether those arguments had been put to the Employment Tribunal and whether it was required to consider them without being asked.
The appeal also touched on the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. In broad terms, an employer must not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.
The EAT's decision and reasoning
1. Rota changes: an implied contractual right had not been argued
Miss Mettle's written contract provided for her working pattern to be arranged with her manager. Rad Kohanzad argued that the Employment Tribunal had failed to consider whether an implied contractual right, arising from custom and practice or otherwise, entitled her to work alternate weekends.
The EAT rejected this ground. No such argument had been advanced before the Employment Tribunal. Although Miss Mettle had represented herself, the Tribunal was not expected to consider whether the express contractual arrangements had been modified by implication when that case had not been put to it.
A further argument concerned the racial profile of the staff affected by the rota change. The EAT found that the evidence before it did not establish that the relevant racial comparisons had been made at the original hearing. In any event, the suggested comparison would not, by itself, have required the burden of proof to shift to the employer.
The ground therefore failed. The decision illustrates the importance of establishing the factual and legal basis of an argument before the Employment Tribunal, rather than seeking to introduce it for the first time on appeal.
2. Suspension: potentially wrong reasoning is not necessarily inadequate reasoning
The employer suspended Miss Mettle after concerns arose about comments she had made in an online interview. The Employment Tribunal accepted that the employer had acted promptly once the video came to its attention and had reasonable safeguarding concerns.
Rad Kohanzad argued that the reasons for treating the suspension as justified were inadequate. He submitted that suspension is not a neutral act, can have serious consequences for an employee and should only be imposed where there is reasonable and proper cause. He also challenged the justification for suspending a nurse who worked with adults on safeguarding grounds arising from the online comments.
The EAT acknowledged that the Employment Tribunal's conclusion might have been wrong. However, it distinguished an incorrect conclusion from inadequate reasons. The Tribunal had accepted the employer's explanation and considered it valid and sufficient. Miss Mettle could therefore understand why she had lost on the issue.
The appeal ground concerned the adequacy of the reasons, not whether the EAT itself would have reached the same conclusion on the evidence. Because the Tribunal had explained its reasoning sufficiently, the ground failed.
3. Temporary relocation: the Tribunal's reasons were adequate when read as a whole
Miss Mettle also challenged the employer's proposal that she return to work at Gravesend in a temporary, non-patient-facing role while the investigation continued.
Her contract expressly reserved the employer's right to change her normal workplace temporarily or permanently. The EAT therefore rejected the argument that the Tribunal should have found an implied contractual right preventing the move: no such argument had been advanced below, and the express term permitted the change.
The EAT accepted that the Employment Tribunal's brief conclusion on the relocation issue did not adequately explain the reasoning if read in isolation. It also recognised that requiring an employee to work at a different and inconvenient location could potentially amount to a detriment or unfavourable treatment.
However, the judgment had to be read fairly as a whole. The Tribunal's factual findings explained why the employer had proposed the temporary move: the investigation remained ongoing, the employer did not consider a return to a patient-facing role appropriate, and there were unresolved issues concerning Miss Mettle's team. The EAT concluded that the Tribunal had treated those reasons as valid and sufficient, and that its reasons were adequate.
The ground failed, as did the other two grounds. The EAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
Key legal principles
Adequate reasons do not have to be exhaustive. The question is whether the Tribunal's decision, read as a whole, enables the parties to understand why they won or lost and permits effective appellate review.
An arguably wrong conclusion is not necessarily an error in the adequacy of reasons. A challenge to the explanation given by a Tribunal must be distinguished from a challenge to the correctness of its substantive conclusion.
Appeals are not normally an opportunity to introduce a new case. Where an argument based on an implied contractual term was not advanced before the Tribunal, it may be difficult to argue on appeal that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider it.
The implied term of mutual trust and confidence remains context-dependent. The question is whether the employer acted without reasonable and proper cause in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. The EAT's decision did not establish that the employer's conduct was necessarily the only reasonable course of action; it held that the grounds of appeal before it did not succeed.
What this means if you are considering an Employment Tribunal appeal
Mettle v HCRG Care Ltd illustrates why it is important to identify the precise legal error in an Employment Tribunal judgment.
If you believe the Tribunal reached the wrong conclusion, that alone will not establish an appealable error. A challenge to the adequacy of reasons must show why the explanation is legally insufficient, rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome. Equally, if an argument about an implied contractual term or a particular factual comparison was not put to the Tribunal, an appeal may face difficulties unless there is a proper basis for raising it at the appellate stage.
In constructive dismissal cases, the assessment also depends on the contractual terms, the employer's reasons for the conduct in question and the cumulative effect of the alleged breaches. This judgment does not mean that suspension or a temporary change of workplace will always be justified. It demonstrates the importance of examining what the Tribunal actually found, what arguments were advanced, and whether the reasons disclose an arguable error of law.
If you have received an unfavourable Employment Tribunal decision, I can review the judgment and relevant documents and advise on whether there may be arguable grounds of appeal before you commit to the further costs of pursuing one. If you decide to proceed, I can also advise on and represent you in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Find out about my Employment Tribunal appeal review and advice service.
Case details and official judgment
Case: Miss M Mettle v HCRG Care Ltd
Neutral citation: [2025] EAT 204
Judgment date: 13 November 2025
Judge: His Honour Judge Shanks
Case number: EA-2024-000825-NK
Counsel for the Appellant: Rad Kohanzad
Counsel for the Respondent: Oliver Lawrence, instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP
Outcome: Appeal dismissed. None of the three grounds succeeded.
Official judgment: Read the full EAT judgment (PDF)
