Constructive dismissal; trust and confidence; the classic exposition of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, which the EAT treated as already clearly established (citing Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew). Breach does not require the employer to have intended any repudiation; the conduct is looked at as a whole and judged reasonably and sensibly. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Contract of employment; the House of Lords confirmed the implied term of mutual trust and confidence: an employer must not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust. Stigma damages are recoverable where the employer's corrupt conduct damages former employees' employment prospects and causes quantifiable, foreseeable loss. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Constructive dismissal; causation; the breach must play a part in the resignation, but need not be the sole cause.
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Constructive dismissal; the test for breach is objective; an employer cannot 'cure' a fundamental breach after it happens.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Constructive dismissal; repudiatory breach of trust and confidence; forward contracts. The Court of Appeal dismissed BGC's appeal on all grounds [57]. Whether there has been a repudiatory breach of the trust and confidence term is a question of fact and highly context-specific [19]-[20]. The test is whether, looking at all the circumstances objectively from the perspective of a reasonable person in the innocent party's position, the contract breaker has clearly shown an intention to abandon and altogether refuse to perform the contract [20], [24]. The employer's objectively assessed intention was therefore of paramount importance: the judge permissibly found that Tullett intended to strengthen the relationship, not attack it [27]. Malik was a damages claim in which repudiation was not in issue [25]. Obligations of trust and confidence can arise under a forward contract before employment begins, attenuated by the continuing employment elsewhere [41], [45]. BGC had repudiated the forward contracts: the Tullett Three committed no breach in terminating them [55].
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Constructive dismissal; trust and confidence; the EAT rejected the submission that Tullett Prebon had changed the law so as to require a tribunal to make a specific finding on the employer's subjective intention. The Court of Appeal there was emphasising that only objective intention is relevant, ascertained by looking at all the circumstances. Woods and Malik remain intact: breach of the implied term requires no intention to repudiate.
Constructive dismissal; 'last straw'; affirmation. The last straw doctrine is relevant only to a cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, not to a one-off repudiatory breach [42]. An employee who soldiers on after the employer's conduct has crossed the Malik threshold can still rely on the totality of that conduct if it is continued by a further act in response to which she resigns [43]. The further act does not revive the earlier breach as such: it revives the right to terminate [51]. Tribunals should put Vairea to one side and follow Omilaju [52]. Five questions for the normal case are set out at [55]. A disciplinary process properly followed cannot constitute, or contribute to, a repudiatory breach [75]. The employment judge had directed himself correctly in striking the claim out [61]: the appeal failed.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.