header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 June 2007 / Suzanne Palmer
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Objecting conscientiously

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Suzanne Palmer discusses the clash between breach of contract claims and statutory grievance procedures

There has been much discussion about the various problems, amounting to a technical minefield for the unwary, posed by the practical application of the statutory dispute resolution mechanism instigated by the Employment Act 2002 (EA 2002) and the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/752) (the regulations). This article examines a problem apparently unique to breach of contract claims brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1623) (the order) and the combined effect of EA 2002 and the regulations on such claims.

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS

EA 2002, ss 31 and 32 are both predicated on the premise that one of the statutory procedures applies. The next point of reference here is the regulations, which state (in reg 2) that “applicable statutory procedure” means “the statutory procedure that applies by virtue of these Regulations”. Regulation 3 sets out the circumstances in which the statutory disciplinary procedure (SDP) applies—where the employer contemplates dismissal

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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
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
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
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’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
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
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
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’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll