Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
A course of conduct by the employer can cumulatively amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, so that the last straw entitles the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
Facts
Mr Lewis was demoted by his employer, without being given proper reasons, which was a breach of contract, but he did not resign. Over the following months, his employer criticised his work and threatened him with dismissal. He eventually resigned, claiming that the employer's conduct as a whole amounted to a constructive dismissal. The tribunal held that he could not rely on the demotion, because he had affirmed the contract by staying on.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal. Glidewell LJ said that the breach of contract on which an employee relies may consist of a series of acts or incidents, some of them perhaps quite trivial, which cumulatively amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The employee could rely on the earlier breach as part of the course of conduct, even though he had not resigned in response to it at the time. The last straw doctrine was later developed in Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC and Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
Related cases on the contract of employment and implied terms
- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661
- Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508
- Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35, [2005] 1 AC 503
- Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58, [2012] 2 AC 22
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
- Geys v Société Générale [2012] UKSC 63, [2013] 1 AC 523
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
- Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
