Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice

[2023] EAT 132
Mr. Omar said he quit his job in anger. The judge didn't look closely enough at whether he really meant it at the time or if his boss understood it that way. A new judge will now hear the case again and properly decide if it was a real resignation or not.

Key Facts

  • Mr. Omar resigned from his employment with Epping Forest District Citizens Advice 'in the heat of the moment' during an altercation with his line manager.
  • His employer apparently recognized his wish to continue employment, but his line manager decided she no longer wanted to work with him.
  • He was asked to confirm his resignation in writing, which he didn't do, instead seeking to retract his resignation.
  • The Tribunal initially found in favor of the respondent (employer), ruling that Mr. Omar had resigned.
  • Mr. Omar appealed, arguing that his resignation fell under the 'special circumstances exception' and constituted unfair dismissal.

Legal Principles

There is no 'special circumstances exception'; the same rules apply to all cases of dismissal or resignation.

Willoughby v CF Capital PLC [2012] ICR 1038

A notice of resignation or dismissal cannot be unilaterally retracted; it requires agreement from the other party.

Willoughby v CF Capital PLC [2012] ICR 1038; Denham v United Glass Ltd

Words of dismissal or resignation are construed objectively, considering all circumstances and using normal contractual interpretation rules.

Willoughby v CF Capital PLC [2012] ICR 1038

The objective assessment must determine if the words constituted immediate dismissal/resignation and were 'really intended'.

Various cases, synthesized in the judgment

Subsequent events are admissible evidence to illuminate the speaker's 'real intention' at the time of the initial statement.

Various cases, synthesized in the judgment

The same rules apply to written and spoken words of resignation/dismissal.

Willoughby v CF Capital PLC [2012] ICR 1038

Outcomes

The EAT allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to make adequate findings of fact and failing to direct itself properly according to legal principles.

The case was remitted for a fresh hearing before a new Tribunal.

The original Tribunal's decision was substantially flawed, and fairness required a rehearing with proper legal direction and factual findings.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.