Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd v Stewart, Barnetts Motor Group Ltd: EAT 20 Dec 2005

EAT Claim for unfair (constructive) dismissal, breach of contract and failure to inform and consult contrary to TUPE Regulations. Prior to instituting the tribunal claim, the claimant’s solicitor had sent a letter to the respondents detailing the ways in which it was alleged that they had breached the claimant’s contract of employment and failed to comply with the relevant TUPE Regulations requirements and what the claimant sought by way of compensation in respect thereof. The letter was marked ‘Without Prejudice’ and finished by intimating that if the respondents did not confirm their acceptance of the claimant’s proposals within fourteen days, they would recommend that he should proceed to make appropriate claims in the Employment Tribunal without further intimation. The Employment Tribunal held that the sending of the letter, though not expressly stated to be a grievance letter, amounted to compliance with the requirements of section 32 of the Employment Act 2002. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed. It did not matter that the details of the claimant’s grievance was set out in a letter of claim or that it was marked ‘Without prejudice’.


The Honourable Lady Smith


UKEATS/0052/05, [2005] UKEAT 0052 – 05 – 2012


Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

CitedClyde Valley Housing Association Ltd v Macaulay EAT 3-Apr-2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Statutory grievance procedure. Modified procedure. Whether letter from claimant’s solicitor set out the basis for her grievance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238811