header-logo header-logo

08 February 2013 / Peter Taheri
Issue: 7547 / Categories: Features , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Dismissed or not dismissed?

Has a recent High Court ruling created a new concept of accidental dismissal? Peter Taheri reports

In Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch), the claimant, having been demoted, claimed breach of contract while remaining in the trust’s employment. He was awarded only £98, as the High Court held he was wrongfully dismissed. Can that be right, when the employer had not purported to dismiss and the employee never claimed constructive dismissal?

Establishing the Hogg principle

Practitioners are familiar with the concept of constructive dismissal: the employer commits a repudiatory breach of the employment contract, in response to which the employee resigns. Perhaps less everyday is Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39, EAT, where the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim succeeded even though he was still in the respondent’s employ. Understanding Hogg is pre-requisite for a discussion of Smith.

In Hogg, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the employee “was being told that his former contract was from that moment gone”. To the employer’s argument

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? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll