The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in the context of costs applications, it is unreasonable behaviour for a claimant to pursue an unfair dismissal claim purely for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that he or she was unfairly dismissed.
In Goode v Marks & Spencer plc EAT/0442/09, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was right to find that an employee had not been dismissed because of having made a protected disclosure. There had been no qualifying or protected disclosure, but merely an opinion expressed about the employer's proposal for changes to a discretionary enhanced redundancy scheme.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the date of a conditional resignation cannot constitute the effective date of termination regardless of any agreement between the employer and employee.
In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson EATS/0038/09, the EAT upheld the employment tribunal's decision that an employee whose employer failed properly to consider his explanation that he had behaved out of character during a hypoglycaemic episode was unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal's conclusion that the employer's rejection of that explanation amounted to direct and disability-related discrimination was wrong in law and was overturned.