Marks & Spencer Plc v. Laneres [2005] ScotCS CSIH_19 (11 February 2005)
The Employment Tribunal's findings that there was a material breach of contract due to delay were justified, but there was no error of law in its conclusion that the breach was not the effective cause of the respondent's resignation; therefore, the appellate tribunal erred in interfering with the Employment Tribunal's decision.
- Citation
- [2005] ScotCS CSIH_19
- Parties
- Appellant: Marks & Spencer plc; Respondent: Ms. Lorraine Laneres
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Session, Inner House
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Constructive Dismissal, Material Breach of Contract, Causation in Resignation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Marks & Spencer plc
Appellant
Ms. Lorraine Laneres
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Session, Inner House
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay in handling employee grievance constituted a material breach of contract
- 2 Whether the material breach was the effective cause of the respondent's resignation
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment Tribunal's findings that there was a material breach of contract due to delay were justified, but there was no error of law in its conclusion that the breach was not the effective cause of the respondent's resignation; therefore, the appellate tribunal erred in interfering with the Employment Tribunal's decision.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed
- Decision of the Employment Tribunal restored
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment