Topics

Constructive dismissal

New and updated

  • Type:
    FAQs

    Can an employee claim unfair dismissal if they have resigned?

  • Date:
    2 September 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Manager's mishandling of flexible working request led to constructive dismissal

    A manager's disastrous mishandling of an application for flexible working, from an employee who had returned from maternity leave, meant that she resigned and successfully claimed constructive dismissal.

  • Date:
    1 September 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case of the week: Constructive dismissal following a TUPE transfer

    This week's case of the week, provided by Thomas Eggar LLP, covers constructive dismissal following a TUPE transfer.

  • Date:
    5 July 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Failure to give employee correct duties was a fundamental breach of contract

    A failure by an employer to give an employee correct duties can constitute a fundamental breach of contract, as this case demonstrates.

  • Date:
    21 June 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Conditional resignation does not trigger effective date of termination

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the date of a conditional resignation cannot constitute the effective date of termination regardless of any agreement between the employer and employee. 

  • Date:
    1 June 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Helen Samuel, associate solicitor and Anna Bridges, associate solicitor, at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.

  • Date:
    5 May 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Constructive dismissal: Repudiatory breach cannot be "cured" to prevent constructive dismissal claim

    In Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation [2010] EWCA Civ 121 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the "range of reasonable responses" test has no place in a tribunal's determination of whether or not there was a repudiatory breach of contract by the employer and constructive dismissal. It also held that such a breach cannot be "cured", so as to prevent the innocent party accepting the breach.

  • Date:
    30 March 2010
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Annual leave: Holiday entitlement can be subject to notice requirements

    In Lyons v Mitie Security Ltd EAT/0081/09, the EAT held that, in principle, the ability to take annual leave is not inalienable and can be lost if the worker does not comply with the notice requirements imposed by the Working Time Regulations 1998 and/or the worker's contract. However, the tribunal had erred in failing to analyse properly whether or not the particular notice requirements of the claimant's contract had been complied with, before deciding to dismiss his constructive dismissal and holiday pay claims.

  • Date:
    9 December 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Unfair dismissal: Norton Tool principle does not apply to unfair constructive dismissal

    In Stuart Peters Ltd v Bell [2009] IRLR 941 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, in a case of constructive unfair dismissal, the Norton Tool principle that compensation for unfair dismissal without notice must include a sum representing the employee's full pay during his or her notice period does not apply, and the employee must give credit for any earnings during this period.

  • Date:
    11 November 2009
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    TUPE: Requirement to move to location outside scope of mobility clause in original contract was fundamental breach of contract

    In Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/0410/08, the EAT held that, in requiring a transferred employee to move to a location outside the scope of the mobility clause in her original contract of employment with the transferor, the transferee had acted in fundamental breach of contract. The employee's subsequent resignation therefore amounted to a constructive dismissal. Further, the transferee's attempt to move her place of work amounted to a substantial change in her working conditions to her material detriment. She was, therefore, also entitled to be treated as having been dismissed under reg.4(9) of the TUPE Regulations.