Jamie v Management Solution Partners Ltd: EAT 31 Jan 2006

The claimant received an email from his employers and resigned claiming unfair dismissal saying that it was repudiatory. The employers objected to the admission of the email into evidence saying that it was marked without prejudice and subject to contract. The claimant appealed.
Held: The email should have been admitted: ‘If the attachment did no more than set out settlement proposals, privilege would attach to it. But the e-mail plainly went further. It set out in clear terms what MSP would do in the absence of any response to the settlement terms. It was, in effect, an ultimatum; if you do not accept option 2 or option 3, option 1 will be imposed upon you. Option 1 was not in accordance with Mr Jamie’s existing contractual rights. ‘ The case was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.


Richardson J


[2006] UKEAT 0404 – 05 – 3101




CitedMalik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
CitedCantor Fitzgerald International v Callaghan and Others CA 21-Jan-1999
The failure or emphatic refusal by a company to pay the wages under the contract as agreed would normally amount to a fundamental breach and repudiation of the contract, which would allow the employee to act on the basis that he had been . .
CitedBarke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd CA 16-May-2005
Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them.
Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than . .
CitedRush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another HL 1988
Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”
A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the . .
CitedNottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
CitedSomatra Limited v Sinclair Roche and Temperley (a Firm) etc CA 26-Jul-2000
In an action between clients and their solicitors, the solicitors produced at an interlocutory hearing evidence derived from without prejudice discussions. The claimants applied for disclosure of all such documents, but this was rejected on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240212