Case 2204688/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Birrell v Bank of England At: London Central Employment Tribunal — 2024
- Case reference
- 2204688/2022
- Decision date
- 2 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Members
- Panel members
- Ms N Sandler, Ms H Craik
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Birrell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the Bank of England unfairly constructively dismissed Mr Birrell. It found the Respondent committed repudiatory breaches of contract, the last on 19 April 2022, and that the Claimant did not affirm the breaches: he engaged with the ACAS early conciliation process and resigned promptly (within 12 days) after learning on 6 July 2022 that conciliation had failed, while also working reduced hours on a phased return.
The Tribunal did not accept the Respondent's contended fair reason for dismissal (some other substantial reason relating to working from abroad and pay), finding the Respondent had failed to follow its own pay policy and to address the Claimant's grievances. Even if a fair reason had existed, the Tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because failures to address important aspects of the grievance fell outside the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.
The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims: the Claimant had not made protected disclosures, so the automatic unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment claims failed; the age discrimination and victimisation claims also failed. A separate remedy hearing was directed in the constructive dismissal complaint, with detailed case management directions for schedules of loss, pension loss valuation, disclosure, bundles and witness statements.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found the Respondent committed repudiatory breaches of contract (the last being on 19 April 2022); the Claimant resigned in response and did not affirm the breach. The Tribunal further found no fair reason for dismissal and, in the alternative, that the Respondent acted procedurally unfairly. Remedy to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal claim (based on protected disclosures) failed because the Tribunal found the Claimant did not make protected disclosures. The 'ordinary' unfair dismissal aspect is reflected in the upheld unfair constructive dismissal finding above. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Tribunal found the Claimant did not make protected disclosures; protected disclosure detriment claim also failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Tribunal found the Respondent did not subject the Claimant to age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Tribunal found the Respondent did not victimise the Claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Repudiatory breach of contract found as the foundation for the successful constructive dismissal claim. The judgment text supplied does not separately quantify a contractual damages award; remedy to be determined at a later hearing. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- ACAS early conciliation
- repudiatory breach of contract
- affirmation of breach
- some other substantial reason
- band of reasonable responses
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.