The claimant claimed that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed or in the alternative constructively dismissed, by the respondent. He had been engaged as a consultant and later CEO and contended that he had not, at any point, resigned his position. The respondent asserted that a letter from the claimant's solicitors effectively amounted to a resignation. The letter stressed that the working relationship had deteriorated and a huge degree of mistrust existed. The claimant's solicitors later robustly denied that the letter signalled the claimant's resignation and that it was instead simply illustrating that the "working relationship was unworkable". The tribunal did not accept this despite concerted attempts by the claimant's solicitor to clarify their intended meaning. It was held, inter alia, that the claimant was neither dismissed nor constructively dismissed. He had resigned from his position but was awarded £25,000 for a shortfall in a payment.

Practical lessons

An implied term of any contract of employment is trust and confidence; thus the claimant's solicitors letter which used the words 'untenable' and 'unworkable' was understandably held to be an attempt to bring the employment to an end. What was also relevant in this case was the finding that the claimant attempted to conspire with others to place the respondent into administration for his own future gain. 

This was clearly a relevant fact in the case, but the tone of the correspondence gave the tribunal little option but to find that the claimant had resigned. The claimant argued that the letter was simply trying to highlight that the 'working relationship needed to change', but this case demonstrates the dangers of loose wording which allowed the tribunal to hold it against the claimant.