Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- In August 2020, the Respondent reorganized and the Claimant's former role was made redundant.
- The Claimant accepted a new role as People Advisor and worked in that role for about two years.
- On 9 September 2022, the Claimant asked to be made redundant and for a severance payment.
- The Respondent did not respond to the request for 39 days.
- The Claimant resigned on 18 October 2022.
- The Claimant brought claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Reorganisation and redundancy
The Respondent underwent a reorganisation, making the Claimant's former position redundant. The Claimant declined voluntary redundancy and accepted a new role as People Advisor.
-
Claimant requests redundancy
The Claimant stated her role as People Advisor was more fitting to a lower grade and had not developed as hoped. She asked the Respondent to revisit her redundancy request and severance payment.
-
Claimant resigns
Having received no response to her redundancy request, the Claimant resigned from her position.
-
Preliminary hearing
The Tribunal heard the Respondent's applications to strike out the claims or for deposit orders. The applications were refused.
The legal issue
The Tribunal had to decide whether the claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal had no reasonable prospect of success, and whether a deposit order should be made against the claimant.
The outcome
The Tribunal refused the employer's applications to strike out the claims or for a deposit order, allowing them to proceed to a full hearing.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's case, taken at its highest, showed a potential fundamental breach of contract by the employer in failing to respond to a redundancy request for 39 days.
- The claims were fact-sensitive and required a full hearing to determine the merits.
- Strike out is a draconian sanction not appropriate where central facts are in dispute.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on strike out and deposit order applications.
Lessons & takeaways
- An employer's prolonged failure to respond to a redundancy request may amount to a fundamental breach of contract, supporting a constructive dismissal claim.
- Strike out applications are rarely successful in fact-sensitive cases, especially where the claimant is a litigant in person.
- If you are considering resigning and claiming constructive dismissal, ensure you have evidence of the employer's breach and that you resigned in response to it without delay.
- A redundancy payment claim can still be viable even if you accepted an alternative role, if the new role is not suitable or the employer later fails to address redundancy concerns.
When silence speaks volumes
This case illustrates how an employer's failure to communicate can itself become the basis of a constructive dismissal claim. The former People Advisor had accepted a new role after a reorganisation in 2020, but two years later felt the role had not developed as hoped and was graded too low. She asked to be made redundant and for a severance payment. The employer did not reply for 39 days. She resigned.
What the employer could have done differently
The London Borough of Hounslow could have avoided this litigation by simply responding to the employee's request, even if only to say it was being considered. A prompt reply might have resolved the matter or at least demonstrated that the employer was not in breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. Instead, the silence gave the employee grounds to argue that the employer had repudiated the contract.
Why this result matters
This preliminary decision is a reminder that tribunals are reluctant to strike out claims at an early stage, especially where the facts are in dispute. The employer's application was refused, meaning the case will go to a full hearing where the merits will be examined. For employees, it shows that a well-founded constructive dismissal claim can survive even when the employer argues it has no reasonable prospect of success. For employers, it underscores the importance of responding to employee requests in a timely manner, particularly when redundancy is raised.
Similar cases
Tesco fails to strike out constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims
A former employee's constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims against Tesco survive after the tribunal refused to strike them out for non-compliance with case management orders.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Credit analyst's religion discrimination claim survives strike out bid
A tribunal refused to strike out a credit analyst's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and religion-based discrimination, finding the claims had reasonable prospects despite missing details.
Social worker's whistleblowing and constructive dismissal claim rejected
A registered social worker who resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal after allegedly blowing the whistle has had his claim thrown out. The tribunal found no protected disclosure and no fundamental breach of contract, and ordered him to pay £2,700 in costs.