Chindove v Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2017] UKEAT 0076_17_0510 (5 October 2017)

Chindove v Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2017] UKEAT 0076_17_0510 (5 October 2017)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons and analysis for its finding that the Claimant affirmed his contract after a repudiatory breach. The Tribunal did not properly consider or explain the significance of the Claimant's conduct, nor did it apply the legal principles on affirmation as clarified by appellate authority. The matter must be remitted for rehearing by a new Tribunal.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0076_17_0510
Parties
Respondent: Morrison's; Appellant/claimant: [Claimant Name Not Provided]
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Unfair Dismissal (constructive Dismissal) / Appeal From Employment Tribunal, Remitted for Rehearing by New Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing by a new Employment Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Affirmation of Contract, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Affirmation of Contract Employment Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morrison's

Respondent

[Claimant Name Not Provided]

Appellant/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Unfair Dismissal (constructive Dismissal) / Appeal From Employment Tribunal, Remitted for Rehearing by New Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant affirmed his contract of employment after a repudiatory breach by the employer, thereby losing the right to claim constructive dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal properly applied the law and gave adequate reasons for its decision on affirmation

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons and analysis for its finding that the Claimant affirmed his contract after a repudiatory breach. The Tribunal did not properly consider or explain the significance of the Claimant's conduct, nor did it apply the legal principles on affirmation as clarified by appellate authority. The matter must be remitted for rehearing by a new Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing by a new Employment Tribunal.

Orders

  • The case is remitted to a new Employment Tribunal for reconsideration of the affirmation issue.
  • The parties are encouraged to consider settlement.