The claimant resigned after her grievance about alleged bullying was rejected. She had also complained about non-payment of sick pay to which she was entitled and the tribunal accepted that this was a repudiatory breach of contract. However, her constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal regarded the principal reason for the resignation as being the rejection of the grievance, which was not a repudiatory breach of contract.
The EAT upheld the claimant's appeal, finding that the tribunal was in error in asking what the "principal" reason for the resignation was. Provided that the claimant could show that the repudiatory breach was a reason for her resignation, she did not have to show that it was the reason. As the failure to pay sick pay was a factor in her resignation she was entitled to succeed in her constructive dismissal claim.
Although the case does not break new legal ground, it's a useful reminder of the principles tribunals should apply in determining whether there has been a dismissal when a claimant resigns. As the EAT also pointed out, the fact that the failure to pay sick pay was not the principal reason for dismissal could limit the claimant's unfair dismissal compensation. If she would have resigned anyway, regardless of whether there had been a breach of contract, it might be difficult for her to show that she suffered any loss.