Mr R Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice (2023)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law in several respects regarding whether a resignation was intentional during a row. The EAT found that the ET failed to "properly [assess] in accordance with the applicable legal principles" whether the words and actions in question could objectively be viewed as a resignation that was genuinely intended from the perspective of a "reasonable bystander". The EAT further noted that the ET failed "to make adequate findings of fact" and incorrectly focused upon a "special circumstances exception", with the EAT ruling that there is "no such thing". The ET also erred in terms of its deliberations over the issue as to whether the Respondent had offered the Claimant an alternative role after the quarrel.