A repudiatory breach of contract

A repudiatory breach of contract Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . A repudiatory breach of contract Usually if the employee resigns, the contract terminates and the employee will have no claim against the employer for wrongful dismissal. However, employee’s resignation may result in wrongful dismissal claim if the resignation is a result of the employer’s repudiatory breach of the contract. Under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the employee is entitled to resign, without giving notice, and can make a claim of wrongful dismissal for the losses he suffered as a result of the early termination of the contract. In order for a claim to succeed, the employee must show that the employer breached either an express or implied contractual term. Furthermore, the employee needs to show that his resignation is a response to the breach, and that such breach was adequately serious to justify the resignation. The employee will also need to show that he had not confirmed the contract following the breach by returning to work. When d etermining the seriousness of the breach, the courts and tribunals will consider the express and implied contractual terms that were breached. The implied duty of trust and confidence is considered an important duty owed to employees by their employers. This duty states that the employer owes duty of support in the event that an employee is subjected by other employees to any form of abuse. It requires an employer to investigate the complaint and to take appropriate action. This was considered in Bracebridge Engineering Ltd v Darby [1990] IRLR 3 where it was held that by failing to provide adequate support and follow appropriate grievance procedure, the employer had breached the implied duty of trust and confidence. In Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] QB 761, the Court of Appeal attempted to define unreasonable conduct and found that the employer must act sensibly in the treatment of his employees. If the employer behaves or conducts his affairs so unreasonably that the e mployee cannot be expected to work in such environment any longer, the employee is justified in leaving. This definition of unreasonable conduct was criticised by Lord Denning, who stated that a certain degree of a particular behaviour may be considered to be in line with the employer’s business. The interpretation is nowadays very wide, however the principle set out in Western Excavating case remains a valid principle in establishing unreasonable conduct. To breach the term of trust and confidence, employer must have been acting in a way that is likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence which must exist between the employer and employee. In Morrow v Safeway Stores plc [2002] IRLR 9, the employee was publicly reprimanded and generally had a bad working relationship with the manager of the store. The Employment Tribunal held that although the public reprimand was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, it was not serious enough to entitle the emp loyee to resign and claim unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this decision and emphasised that the breach of implied term of trust and confidence, if committed, is a fundamental breach stemming from the contract itself, and as such will entitle the employee to resign.