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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll