Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+

Case lawPoliceEmployee relationsEmployment tribunals

Royle v Greater Manchester Police Authority

by Eversheds HR Group 17 Oct 2006
by Eversheds HR Group 17 Oct 2006

Background

Mrs Royle was a senior welfare officer at the police authority. She resigned in January 2004 and claimed that she had been constructively dismissed, citing various shortcomings of the authority that occurred between 1999 and 2004. Royle claimed they amounted to breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence and the authority’s duty to take reasonable care for her health and safety, and that there had been a fundamental breach of her contract of employment.

The tribunal considered that the authority’s conduct did not amount cumulatively to a fundamental breach of contract, and Royle’s claim was dismissed. She appealed, inter alia, on the ground that the tribunal had failed to make a finding on every allegation she had made.

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. It held that where a claimant lists numerous complaints about their employer in a constructive dismissal case, the tribunal does not need to make a finding in relation to each complaint. In such a case, it is sufficient to make a finding as to whether there has been a fundamental breach of contract, taking into account all significant matters that are said to have contributed to that breach.

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.

Comment

The EAT commented that it is preferable that a party who believes an important point has not been properly dealt with by the tribunal should seek clarification from the tribunal before seeking an appeal, given the expense and delay involved. Therefore, a party who wishes to complain that a tribunal has not dealt with all aspects of its case should consider raising the issue as soon as the reasons are received.

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
British Airways faces barrage of angry responses after crucifix necklace ban
next post
What women want at work: how the best firms keep top female talent

You may also like

HR manager with ‘messy’ work loses discrimination case

25 Jun 2025

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Man who used company credit card for himself...

23 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

AI company did not racially discriminate against Chinese...

20 Jun 2025

Barts nurse told to remove watermelon image claims...

19 Jun 2025

WFH employee who falsified timesheets loses unfair dismissal...

16 Jun 2025

Sleeping security officer wins £20k for unfair dismissal

16 Jun 2025

Menopause claims triple in two years, tribunal figures...

16 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
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
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • 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
  • OHW+