The importance of the disciplinary appeal process: Milrine v DHL (2026)
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More
Case Study
On 19 February 2020, Mr Omar resigned from his position at EFDCA following a heated altercation with Ms Skinner, his line manager. Despite asserting that EFDCA’s CEO, Ms Anyanwu, had suggested considering an alternative role in a subsequent meeting on the same day, Mr. Omar faced resistance. At a meeting on 21 February, Ms Anyanwu informed Mr Omar that Ms Skinner no longer wanted to work with him, affirming his resignation.
Although Mr. Omar initially confirmed his resignation in writing, he later sought to retract it. Mr Omar even writing to the employer informing them that the resignation was “in the heat of the moment”. This request was refused, and, at the end of the month-long notice period, the claimant’s employment ended. EFDCA refused the retraction, deeming Mr Omar’s employment terminated on 19 February.
The Employment Tribunal’s initial ruling favoured the employer, holding that Mr Omar had genuinely intended to resign on 19 February. In particular, it found that the words Mr Omar had used were clear and unequivocal and that he had also agreed to put it in writing.
Mr Omar appealed this decision, leading to a review by the EAT.
Case Study
The EAT’s review outlined the following crucial principles governing resignations and dismissals:
It is a fine line, the EAT concluded, between a case where notice was not “really intended” and where the giver changed their mind after the fact, and it was for the Tribunal to determine which side of the line the case falls.
The EAT found errors in the Tribunal’s approach. It had failed to consider the crucial question: had the claimant “really intended” to resign? Additionally, deficiencies were noted in the tribunal’s findings on key aspects, leading to a lack of clarity on Mr Omar’s exact words and the events during subsequent meetings.
Mr Omar’s appeal was therefore successful; the case was remitted back to the Tribunal.
The EAT’s decision in Omar v EFDCA provides clarity on “heat of the moment” resignation and dismissal principles, emphasising an objective analysis from the standpoint of a reasonable bystander.
Contact Us
For further information or advice in relation to dealing with employee dismissals, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
Related Services
Knowledge
On Monday 29 September, Flint Bishop successfully completed the acquisition of the entire business of Lupton Fawcett LLP. You have been forwarded to the page most relevant to your visit.
Please feel free to explore our website and learn more about our legal services and professionals, including those who have recently joined us from Lupton Fawcett.