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 lawDismissal

Thorpe v Eaton Electrical Limited, 6 December 2004

by Eversheds HR Group 1 Mar 2005
by Eversheds HR Group 1 Mar 2005

Prospects of success
Thorpe v Eaton Electrical Limited, 6 December 2004

Thorpe brought a claim for constructive dismissal, alleging that his employer had breached the terms of his contract relating to salary review and bonus entitlement. Thorpe failed to prove that there had been a fundamental breach of his contract, and the tribunal found in the employer’s favour.

Thorpe appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). At the outset, the EAT made it clear that the tribunal had made no error of law, so Thorpe’s appeal had to be made on the basis that the tribunal’s decision had been “perverse”, which is acknowledged to be a difficult standard of proof to meet. Thorpe’s case was not particularly strong and his appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The employer sought to recover its costs from Thorpe, arguing that he should not have pursued it to the EAT.

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.

The EAT rejected the application. Thorpe’s case had not been particularly strong, but the ambiguity in some of the wording used in the ET3 response form meant that the employer’s case was not clear cut, and therefore did not quite fall into the category of cases with “no realistic prospect of success”.

The EAT said that “no realistic prospects of success” means that “a case is so poor that the other side does not even have to get up on their feet” (to respond to the points raised). When they fall within this category, the litigant should abandon their case, and not regard it as a free opportunity to have their day in court.


Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Royal Bank Of Scotland staff win 10% profit share bonus
next post
The proactive approach

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