W A Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnell & Anor [1995] UKEAT 489_94_2804 (28 April 1995)

Failure to provide or operate a proper grievance procedure constituted a fundamental breach of contract, justifying the Employees' resignation as constructive dismissal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1995] UKEAT 489_94_2804
Parties: Appellant: Employers; Respondent: Employees
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 28 April 1995
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Constructive Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Grievance Procedures

Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Breach of Contract Grievance Procedures

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Employers

Appellant

Employees

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Employers were in such serious breach of their obligations under the contracts of employment as to entitle the Employees to leave as they did
2 Whether failure to provide and implement a grievance procedure amounted to a breach of contract
3 Whether the breach was sufficiently serious to justify the employees walking out

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to provide or operate a proper grievance procedure constituted a fundamental breach of contract, justifying the Employees' resignation as constructive dismissal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's decision upheld

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.