Triton Oliver (Special Products) Ltd v Bromage

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by employers from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Birmingham dated 2nd September 1991. The Tribunal had found, by majority of the lay members, that the Respondent was constructively dismissed and that his dismissal was unfair. The Respondent, aged 45, had been employed by the Appellants since 1972, most recently as a Quality Manager. The Appellants operated two factories and provided the Respondent with a company vehicle, a "Mitsubishi Shogun," for both business and personal use, including use by the Respondent's wife, with fuel expenses partly covered by the company.

After the Respondent suffered a heart attack in September 1990, he retained the car but was no longer able to drive it. His wife continued to use the vehicle for personal purposes, fueling it on the company account. The Appellants objected to this use and withdrew the petrol account in early October 1990, which the Tribunal found reasonable and not a breach of contract. Subsequently, on 2nd November 1990, the Appellants repossessed the car without prior discussion with the Respondent, who was upset but did not object at the time. The Respondent later consulted ACAS and legal advisors, alleging breach of contract and considering constructive dismissal.

The Respondent's solicitors wrote to the Appellants on 8th November asserting breach of contract due to removal of the car and petrol benefit. Further correspondence revealed that the Group Permanent Health Scheme had been closed in April 1990 without the Respondent's knowledge. The Appellants then offered the Respondent a smaller car with a limited petrol allowance, which was communicated on 20th November. The Respondent's solicitors responded that the cumulative breaches rendered the Respondent's position untenable and that he considered himself constructively dismissed as of that date.

The Industrial Tribunal majority found that the removal of the car was a repudiatory breach accepted by the Respondent, resulting in constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reviewed this finding on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the actions of the Appellants in withdrawing the petrol account and repossessing the company car amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.
2. Whether the Respondent accepted such repudiatory breach in a manner sufficient to constitute constructive dismissal.
3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal's majority finding of constructive dismissal was supported by the evidence and legally sound.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The withdrawal of the petrol account was reasonable and justified, not amounting to a breach of contract.
• The repossession of the car was precipitate but did not constitute a repudiatory breach as the Respondent did not object or accept it as such at the time.
• The offer of a replacement car with a petrol allowance was an attempt to remedy any discourtesy and breach.

Respondent's Arguments

• The removal of the car and petrol benefit was a breach of contract.
• The closure of the Group Permanent Health Scheme without notification was an additional breach.
• These breaches cumulatively led to the Respondent's decision to resign, amounting to constructive dismissal.
• The Respondent contended that he resigned on or about 20th November 1990, after the offer of the replacement car, not earlier.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that the appeal was focused on contractual issues rather than typical unfair dismissal claims. It acknowledged that the Appellants acted precipitously and discourteously in repossessing the car without prior consultation. However, the court noted that the Respondent did not accept and communicate acceptance of a repudiatory breach at the time of the car's removal. Instead, the Respondent only considered whether the breach amounted to constructive dismissal and did not resign until after receiving the offer of a replacement car and learning of the health scheme closure.

The court found the Industrial Tribunal majority's conclusion that the Respondent had accepted a repudiatory breach at the time of car removal to be perverse and unsupported by evidence. It further held that the primary cause of the Respondent's resignation was the undisclosed closure of the health insurance scheme, not the removal of the car or petrol benefit. The court concluded that because the Respondent purported to accept repudiation only after the Appellants had attempted to remedy the situation, he was no longer entitled to claim constructive dismissal on that basis.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the Industrial Tribunal's majority decision and DISMISSED the Respondent's claim for constructive dismissal. The appeal by the employers succeeded.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Respondent's claim for constructive dismissal fails and no award arises. The court did not establish new precedent but clarified the necessity for timely acceptance and communication of repudiatory breach by an employee before claiming constructive dismissal.