Mr Matthew Chapman v Ice Pig Limited (trading as Skuna Boats) — 2024

Mr Chapman was employed as a general manager from October 2018 and resigned with immediate effect on 6 July 2023. His claim was for constructive unfair dismissal arising from two alleged incidents involving Mr Thomson on 27 April 2023 and 13 May 2023, together with an asserted failure to deal promptly with his grievance. The tribunal recorded the applicable test as whether the respondent, without reasonable and proper cause, behaved in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence, and also noted the Western Excavating and Mahmud authorities.

After hearing Mr Chapman’s evidence, the tribunal granted the respondent’s application to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a). It found that the alleged delay in processing the grievance was not the real reason for resignation: Mr Chapman’s own evidence was that he resigned when he believed he had to do so within three months in order to bring a claim, and that if he had known the limitation position he would not have resigned on 6 July 2023. The tribunal described that rationale as of his own manufacture and unrelated to any breach by the respondent.

The tribunal accepted that the two incidents complained of occurred, namely Mr Thomson telling Mr Chapman to “grow up” on 27 April 2023 and swearing at him over lateness on 13 May 2023. It nevertheless found that those incidents did not destroy the relationship of trust and confidence, relying in particular on the fact that Mr Chapman did not resign at or shortly after either incident, but instead brought a grievance and continued to seek to remain on amicable terms while pursuing a reasonable outcome. The tribunal also relied on Mr Chapman’s evidence that he wanted to push through to the end of the season and benefit both parties, and on his acceptance that the grievance complaint was not, in fact, a real issue.

The tribunal concluded that, even if the two incidents had amounted to breaches, Mr Chapman did not resign in response to them. It treated the case as an exceptional one in which a strike-out was justified because the relevant factual matrix was not disputed and the claimant’s own evidence on his reasons for resignation was clear. No respondent witnesses were heard, and no remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out.