Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise

Case lawEmployment lawDiscipline and grievances

Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd v (1)Stewart (2)Barnetts Motor Group Ltd

by Eversheds HR Group 21 Mar 2006
by Eversheds HR Group 21 Mar 2006

Solicitor’s letter counts as grievance note
Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd v (1)Stewart (2)Barnetts Motor Group Ltd, EAT, 20 December 2005

Background

Mr Stewart was the general manager of Barnetts Motor Group. Barnetts sold its business to Arnold Clark Automobiles (ACA), which proposed to appoint a different general manager. There was, according to Stewart, no consultation or discussion with him about the proposal, so he resigned.

Stewart’s solicitors wrote a letter to ACA, which was marked ‘without prejudice’. It detailed the ways in which it was alleged that ACA had breached Stewart’s contract of employment and quantified his potential claims. The claims were refuted and Stewart presented his complaints to the tribunal.

The issue the tribunal had to consider was whether a grievance note had been sent. If Stewart had not raised a grievance, he would not be entitled to proceed with his claim.

Decision

The tribunal said the sending of the letter amounted to a grievance note for the purpose of the statutory grievance procedure. ACA appealed, alleging that the letter was a letter of claim and nothing more.

Appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) confirmed the tribunal’s decision and held that:



  • a claimant’s grievance can be set out in a letter of claim

  • the letter does not have to contain the word ‘grievance’ or spell out that a grievance procedure is being invoked

  • a ‘grievance’ can be sent by a solicitor instructed by a claimant

  • the fact that a letter is marked ‘without prejudice’ will not prevent it from being a grievance for the purposes of the statutory grievance procedure.

Comment

It is irrelevant that a complaint is contained in a letter that also doubles as something else – in this case, a ‘letter of claim’. Also, it does not matter that such a letter is marked ‘without prejudice’. Employers must scrutinise written correspondence from employees (and their solicitors) to see if it raises a complaint that could form the basis of a tribunal complaint.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

An employer that fails to respond to a written complaint may risk an increase in any compensation awarded by a tribunal.

 

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Employers put back-to-work mums at bottom of list for jobs
next post
Information and consultation: Do unions have the right to see more company information?

You may also like

Ministers extend liability for umbrella companies’ unpaid PAYE

18 Sep 2025

MPs reject Lords’ amendments to Employment Rights Bill

16 Sep 2025

Judge in Supreme Court ruling said he’d ‘take...

15 Sep 2025

Employment lawyers voice AI fears on tribunal claims

15 Sep 2025

Day one rights to make 86% more cautious...

14 Sep 2025

Employment Rights Bill U-turn unlikely, say legal experts

10 Sep 2025

Day one rights in the Employment Rights Bill...

10 Sep 2025

Reshuffle sparks fears over Employment Rights Bill

8 Sep 2025

How to manage workplace investigations effectively

5 Sep 2025

‘Terrible’ Employment Rights Bill returns to Commons

4 Sep 2025

  • Workplace health benefits need to be simplified SPONSORED | Long-term sickness...Read more
  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits Live
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise