EAT held that on the factor of this case the letter of dismissal was unambiguous and there was therefore no place for the application of the contra proferentem rule of construction. There was therefore no need to follow Chapman v Letheby and Christopher Ltd [1981] IRLR 441.
For UKEAT/0636/05/LA
At the hearing of this Appeal there was a dispute between the parties as to what documents were before the Chairman when she refused a review. Order made under Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd [2005] ICR 1373.
Judges:
Birtles J
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 00095 – 06 – 0307
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd EAT 1980
The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243223
