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 lawDismissalUnfair dismissal

Heat of the moment resignation plea is rejected – Case of the week: Ali v Birmingham City Council

by Bob Cordran 20 Jan 2009
by Bob Cordran 20 Jan 2009

Ali v Birmingham City Council

FACTS Mr Ali was employed by Birmingham City Council. On 25 April 2007 he handed in a letter of resignation due to “personal circumstances”. His evidence was that he was “under pressure, stressed out and couldn’t think straight and was not fully aware of what [he] was doing at the time”.

On advice from the council’s HR department, Ali’s manager offered him a cooling-off period. She asked him if he wanted to reconsider, but he reaffirmed his decision to resign. The manager left him for 20 minutes to reconsider. He then became upset and so was given a further 10 minutes. Ali then confirmed his decision to resign with immediate effect, which his manager accepted.

Two days later, he called the council, but was told that he had no automatic right to return. On Sunday 29 April, he e-mailed his manager saying he wished to return. On 4 May he was told “a decision has been made not to reinstate your contract and your resignation therefore still stands”.

DECISION Ali brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his claim as he had resigned rather than being dismissed. Ali appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

In general, an employer is entitled to treat unambiguous words of resignation as being effective. However, in Southern v Franks Charlesly, the Court of Appeal identified three ‘special circumstances’ in which an otherwise clear and unambiguous resignation should not be relied on. These were “an immature employee, a decision taken in the heat of the moment [and] an employee being jostled into a decision by the employer”. Where such special circumstances exist, “a reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can be properly assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employer’s risk”. At the EAT in Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Lineham, it was said that the appropriate period for the employee to change his mind was “likely to be a day or two”.

In any case, the EAT held that Ali’s actions did not fit within these ‘special circumstances’ identified in Southern. Ali had confirmed his wish to resign after 30 minutes’ reflection and so did not resign in the heat of the moment, a view which was supported by not asking for his resignation to be reconsidered until four days later. Even if special circumstances had applied, the four-day delay before notifying the council that he had changed his mind would have been too long.

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.

IMPLICATIONS The case serves as a useful reminder than, in certain limited circumstances, an employer should investigate further before accepting an apparently straightforward resignation. Here, a 30-minute period of reflection was enough to establish that the decision was not taken in the heat of the moment. Where, however, a resignation is made in the heat of the moment, the employee may be able to change their mind, if they do so quickly, and that will usually mean within a day or two.

Bob Cordran, partner, Thomas Eggar

Bob Cordran

previous post
Race discrimination by job agencies – legal Q and A
next post
British Army in need of bigger breaks and bigger brigades, says top general

You may also like

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

Sainsbury’s manager awarded £60k following colleague’s aggressive behaviour

11 Sep 2025

Estate agent ‘demoted’ after desk move awarded £21k

11 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

Bar manager told she looked ‘very Aryan’ wins...

9 Sep 2025

Reshuffle sparks fears over Employment Rights Bill

8 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