Mr. L. Melody v Lomas Distribution Limited — 2023

The claimant worked as an HGV driver for the respondent from 1 July 2011 until 28 September 2022. After a recurring fault light appeared on his vehicle on 26, 27 and 28 September 2022, he reported that he believed the vehicle was unsafe to drive. The tribunal accepted that there was a heated telephone exchange with Richard Lomas, but it had to decide first whether the claimant had been dismissed at all.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had been expressly dismissed on the call. It found that the words relied on, including 'come back and empty your cab', did not amount to clear words of dismissal in context, particularly because it was normal practice for drivers to transfer belongings if they moved to another vehicle while one was being repaired. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's ET1 did not include the words 'You're finished', which he later said had been used.

On the evidence, the tribunal preferred the respondent's account that the claimant was agitated, returned to the depot, emptied his cab, asked for his P45 and made clear that he was leaving. It held that the contract was terminated by the claimant, not the respondent, and that the circumstances did not bring the case within the 'special exception' line of authority. In the alternative, if special circumstances had applied, the claimant did not seek to retract his resignation within a reasonable period.

Because there was no dismissal, both the unfair dismissal complaint, including the health and safety dismissal allegation under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the wrongful dismissal claim for unpaid notice failed. The judgment records no monetary award.