Mr M Hoggart v Explorer UK Limited — 2019

The Claimant, Mr Hoggart, had been employed by Explorer UK Limited since 1996 and by 2018 was working on Oracle sales accounts. The Tribunal accepted that he had become unhappy in the role and had raised concerns earlier in 2018 about spending too much time on large accounts, especially PrePay, at the expense of business development and commission earning. It also found that the Respondent had made genuine efforts to support him, including changes to his title and reporting arrangements and proposals aimed at freeing him up for new business work.

The central issue was what happened at the meeting on 17 September 2018. Having listened to the recording, the Tribunal found that the meeting was calm and that Mr Thomason and the other directors were trying to understand whether the Claimant had decided to leave and whether there was any way to retain him. The Claimant said in the meeting that he was open to discussion about exiting the business, that he did not wish to do the proposed role, and that it was time for a new beginning. The Tribunal held that, viewed objectively, he had made a clear decision to leave and had resigned at that meeting, with notice commencing immediately.

The Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s primary case that he only resigned later, on 11 December 2018, in response to letters from Mr Thomason and the Respondent’s solicitors. It held that the later correspondence did not show a fresh resignation date, because the resignation had already been communicated on 17 September and the parties had treated notice as running from then. The Tribunal also found that the Claimant’s conduct after the meeting, including handover activity and leaving the office, was consistent with an understanding that he was leaving employment.

On the alternative constructive dismissal case, the Tribunal accepted that a proposal to move the Claimant from a director-level position into Nina Brooks’ team as an Account Manager could have amounted to a fundamental breach because it would likely have involved a significant change in status. However, it found that the Claimant did not resign in response to that proposed change. The Tribunal concluded that he had not been dismissed, because the Respondent did not end the employment and the Claimant had resigned voluntarily at the meeting. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.