EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal did not approach the question of constructive unfair dismissal in a last straw case by reference to the steps in Omilaju. To take an analytic approach and ask of each event whether the Claimant had proved a breach or fundamental breach of contract was an error. Appeal allowed. Remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal. ACAS recommended.
McMullen QC HHJ
 UKEAT 0361 – 08 – 1603,  IRLR 451
Employment Rights Act 1996 95(1)(c)
England and Wales
See Also – Muschett v Parkwood Healthcare EAT 18-Jun-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application /Claim – Amendment – 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements
The Claimant’s ET1, presented during his employment, made reference to numerous complaints but did not . .
Cited – Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
Cited – Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd CA 1985
The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .
Cited – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Cited – GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs EAT 13-Jun-2007
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Last straw constructive unfair dismissal. Last straw; employer’s failure to deal properly with her grievance – Constructive dismissal . .
Applied – Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another EAT 22-Jul-2004
EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET.
(i) ET must, if . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.341248