Miceli v Signal House Ltd [1996] UKEAT 180_95_1602 (16 February 1996)
The Tribunal fundamentally misdirected itself by equating delay with affirmation of contract in constructive dismissal. The correct legal test is whether the employee affirmed the contract, not merely whether there was delay. The Tribunal failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding affirmation.
- Citation
- [1996] UKEAT 180_95_1602
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Miceli; Respondent: Respondents (Engineering Company)
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 16 February 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- case remitted
- Legal Topics
- Constructive Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Affirmation of Contract, Disciplinary Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Miceli
Appellant
Respondents (Engineering Company)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay in resignation constitutes affirmation of contract in constructive dismissal
- 2 Whether the Industrial Tribunal misdirected itself in law regarding delay and affirmation
- 3 Whether the disciplinary procedure breached the contract of employment
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal fundamentally misdirected itself by equating delay with affirmation of contract in constructive dismissal. The correct legal test is whether the employee affirmed the contract, not merely whether there was delay. The Tribunal failed to make necessary findings of fact regarding affirmation.
Court Disposition
case remitted
Orders
- Case remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for rehearing in light of legal misdirection.
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