header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 July 2016 / Tom Walker
Issue: 7707 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

The human touch

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7707_walker

Constructive dismissal upholds the law of contract, but with a human touch, says Tom Walker
  • The contractual nature of constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal is all about contract law. It serves as a tonic to us employment lawyers. We are so used to our questions of fairness, reasonable investigation and legitimate aims that now and then it is good for us to adjust our minds to the pure law of contract. For example, it is all too easy to assume that a constructive dismissal is an unfair dismissal and confuse the two concepts. Perhaps the best reminder of the difference is the case of Farrant v Woodroffe School (1997) EAT/1117/96, [1998] IRLR 176.

A technician at a school was asked to teach another subject where there was under-staffing. He refused. The headteacher, mistakenly believing that he had a contractual right to impose the change, consulted with the technician and then implemented the decision. Mr Farrant resigned. There was a constructive dismissal in that there was no contractual right to make such a

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll