Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Mrs P Levy UKEAT/0232/17, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal that an employee had not resigned, but was in fact dismissed by her employer.

The facts in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Mrs P Levy

Mrs Levy was employed by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (the “Trust”) in the records department of one of their hospitals.  She had a difficult relationship with one of her colleagues.  She had also been spoken to about her attendance record by the hospital’s operational manager, Mr Gorton-Davey.

Mrs Levy applied for a role in the radiology department and had received a conditional offer for the role.  On 10 June 2016 following an argument with another colleague, Ms Levy handed Mr Gorton-Davey a letter which stated, ‘Please accept one month’s notice from the above date’.  Mr Gorton-Davey then sent Mrs Levy a letter which accepted Mrs Levy’s resignation and noted that her last day of working in the records department would be 8 July 2016.  Crucially, Mr Gorton-Davey did not deal with matters such as outstanding holiday pay and he did not complete the staff termination form, both of which he ordinarily would have when someone resigned from the Trust.

On 16 June 2016 Mrs Levy was advised that her conditional offer of employment in the radiology department had been withdrawn due to her absence record.  She then sought to withdraw her notice.  The Trust took legal advice and HR advised Mr Gorton-Davey that it was up to him whether or not he wanted to allow Mrs Levy to retract her resignation.  In light of her sickness absence record Mr Gorton-Davey decided not to allow Mrs Levy to retract her resignation.  He then went about promptly completing a staff termination form, which was stated to be only for use ‘by employees leaving…not internal transfers’ and dealt with Mrs Levy’s overtaken holiday.

Mrs Levy brought a claim for unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal (the “ET”). The Trust argued that Mrs Levy had not been dismissed, but had in fact resigned.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The ET found that Mrs Levy had been dismissed by the Trust.  It found that Mrs Levy had not used clear and unambiguous words in her letter dated 10 June 2016 and that the letter failed to identify the subject in respect of which notice had been given.  The notice could have been in relation to her role in the records department or notice of termination of her employment with the Trust.

The ET also found that even if the words used had been clear and unambiguous, there were ‘special circumstances’ which required Mrs Levy’s words to be considered objectively.  Those special circumstances included the fact that Mrs Levy was unhappy in the records department, that she needed to work to support her family and to assist her in caring for her father, that her offer from the records department was only conditional and that she was unaware that her sickness absence might adversely affect the offer.  The Trust was aware of all of those special circumstances.  The ET found that in light of all of that, an objective consideration of the letter would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that Mrs Levy’s letter of the 10 June 2016 was simply Mrs Levy notifying the Trust of her intention to accept a new role with the Trust. It was not a termination of her employment.

The ET therefore decided that on the balance of probabilities Mrs Levy had established that she did not resign from her employment on 10 June 2016, but was dismissed by the Trust on 24 June 2016 when it treated her letter as a valid resignation.  The Trust appealed to the EAT.

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

The Employment Appel Tribunal ( the “EAT”) dismissed the Trust’s appeal.  What was important was what was said by Mrs Levy on 10 June 2016 and how that had been understood by the Trust at the time.  As a result, the ET was entitled to find that Mrs Levy was giving notice from her role in the records department and was not resigning from the Trust.  It was also clear when viewed objectively that that was exactly what the Trust understood themselves at the time.  The ET were entitled to find that the language used by Mrs Levy in her letter of 10 June 2016 was not clear and unambiguous, or, in the alternative, it had to be read in light of the special circumstances that existed at the time.

Therefore, the ET had had to decide who had ended the contract of employment in circumstances where Mrs Levy had submitted an ambiguous communication.  Whilst both parties agreed that the ET were correct to consider how the letter of 10 June would be construed by a reasonable recipient who knew about the particular circumstances that existed at the time, the Trust appealed the ET findings on the basis that they failed to have regard to the subjective views of Mrs Levy and Mr Gorton-Davey.  However, the EAT was not persuaded that there was any evidence to support an assertion that Mr Gorton-Davey had treated Mrs Levy’s letter of 10 June 2016 as anything other than a resignation from her post in the records department.

Finally, the EAT concluded that the ET had been entitled to refuse to consider the parties’ respective actions after Mrs Levy gave notice on the 10 June 2016.  It was permissible for the ET to focus on the letter of 10 June 2016 and the circumstances surrounding it, rather than trying to construe what Mrs Levy said with the benefit of hindsight and considering what the parties said and did at a later stage, when circumstances had changed.

Our solicitors’ views on the case of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Mrs P Levy

Sacha Barrett, an associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “This case serves as a reminder that where there is any ambiguity about whether an employee has actually given notice to terminate their employment or where there are special circumstances that exist surrounding the notice given, an employer should always ensure the employee genuinely meant to end the employment relationship if they do not want to face an unfair dismissal claim.”

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Mrs P Levy: UKEAT/0232/17can be found here.


Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    Contact us

    Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

    T: 020 3397 3603
    E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
    W: www.redmans.co.uk


    4.76 Average

    235 Reviews

    Paul O

    Chris & Rana guided me through a redundancy discussion. Prompt & patient assistance with the documents & meetings. Clear advice & fast responses regarding negotiations. Would definitely recommend & would use again without hesitation.

    Posted 1 month ago


    Outstanding, efficient service. Thank you so much!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Jaswant S

    Very very happy with the good service I got Thank you so much for your help

    Posted 1 month ago


    Mel and Chris were fantastic and supportive throughout! 1000% recommend.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Emma D

    Good responsive service

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mike T

    Good efficient service.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Brenda G

    Very professional and helpful

    Posted 1 month ago

    Charles A

    Chris Hadrill was recommended to me when I found myself in need of a solicitor at very short notice. He contacted me almost immediately to arrange a call. Chris handled my case in a professional and timely manner and kept me notified throughout. Chris inspired confidence and made me feel I was being cared for. If ever I'm in need of legal representation, I would not hesitate to contact Chris. And will gladly recommend him to family and friends.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Rosalind R

    I was very happy with the service that I received from Redmans Solicitors. They were able to advise me accordingly with regards to my employment matter and stay within the agreed costing.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Karl B

    Caroline and Chris were so helpful and friendly. Couldn't of asked for a better service.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Dimitrios P

    Excellent, professional service, in time and within the expected value.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Barbara K

    Everything quickly and fairly. Very professional. Thank you.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Sabrina J

    I received a efficient professional service during the whole process of liasing between myself and my former employer to getting all forms signed and receiving my redundancy payment in full in the summer of this year.

    Posted 1 month ago


    I received legal advice on a redundancy settlement agreement from Redmans Solicitors and was very impressed by the quality of their service. Chris Hadrill is highly experienced in settlement matters and was especially understanding of the particulars of my case, going out of his way to ensure that it was resolved quickly and with the utmost professionalism. I have no hesitation in recommending Redmans to anyone in need of employment advice and settlement resolution.

    Posted 1 month ago


    Excellent service, with full explanations of everything needed. Both Chris and Mel answered all emails very promptly and were personable and efficient.

    Posted 1 month ago


    I would like to thank Chris Hadrill, in particular who handled my case, for all his hard work, expertise and dedication. He listened with empathy and offered suitable advice, which made me feel valued and confident through a difficult time. I would highly recommend Chris and the team at Redmans Solicitors. Thank you.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Yann G

    Yann Guezennec / Chris Hadrill - Thanks for the detailed, informed and professional advice for my settlement. When comprise is the rule I felt we could have been maybe a bit more aggressive from the start. However an acceptable outcome considering the situation. Thank you

    Posted 1 month ago

    Valentina D

    Great service from Mel, she was very good at explaining every part of the settlement agreement and very efficient dealing with the HR team. Very professional team, I would definitely use them again in future if the opportunity came up.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Olaf S

    I was very happy with the service that I have received. Thank You Regards

    Posted 2 months ago

    Rebecca A

    I had a wonderful solicitor called Caroline who was so helpful and gave me all the information I need and explained everything in detail so I was crystal clear. Would highly recommend if you are in need of a solicitor!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Gareth J

    Very efficient, helpful and pragmatic support from Caroline. Happy to work with my requirements / suggestions but also made some very good points which helped to achieve a higher settlement amount. Would highly recommend Caroline and Chris.

    Posted 2 months ago