header-logo header-logo

Constructive dismissal at the highest echelons of government

14457
With the civil service chief’s future in doubt and the government’s behaviour in the headlines, Amanda Robinson & David Wolchover reflect on recent allegations against the Home Secretary, and consider why resignation may sometimes be the only choice
In February 2020, Sir Philip Rutnam, the Home Office’s most senior civil servant resigned, sensationally announcing he would be pursuing a constructive dismissal claim against the Home Office. His resignation followed a flurry of bullying allegations made against Home Secretary Priti Patel. Sir Philip’s claim was lodged on 20 April 2020, which included a claim for ‘whistleblowing’.

Constructive dismissal defined

Constructive dismissal may be defined as misconduct by an employer against an employee in fundamental breach of the terms of employment which leaves the employee with little or no option but to resign from post. Claims for constructive dismissal are issued under s 95(1)(c), Employment Rights Act 1996. Employees who have faced bullying in the workplace would be entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal where it

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll