Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited landmark decision in April this year, in the appeal of Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood [2018] UKSC 22, ruling that notice of termination takes effect neither when the termination letter is posted by the employer, nor when it is put through the employee’s front door – but when the employee actually reads it.

The Supreme Court found in favour of Sandi Haywood, an NHS worker whose managers sent her notification that her role was redundant while she was on holiday. It centred on the timing of her dismissal and whether the official notice fell before or after her 50th birthday.

The Supreme Court by a majority of three to two (Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs dissenting) dismissed the Trust’’s appeal. Lady Hale, with whom Lord Wilson and Lady Black agreed, analysing the common law decisions reached in civil courts as well as the line of employment law cases decided since 1980, gave the main judgment and Lady Black added a further analysis of the case-law.

While the case dealt with an employment issue, the case was initially heard in the High Court as a breach of contract claim. Lady Hale, current President of the Supreme Court,  expressed surprise in her judgement that, given the number of people that this problem could potentially affect, the higher courts had not seen such a case before now.

The factual background of Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood

Mrs Haywood (the Respondent), was dismissed by reason of redundancy by her employer, the NHS Trust (the Appellant). Her contract of employment provided for termination of a minimum period of notice of 12 weeks but did not explicitly state how such notice should be given or when it should take effect.

On 20 April 2011, the Appellant sent a letter giving written notice of termination by recorded delivery to the Respondent’s home address. The Appellant was aware that she was away on holiday. The letter was collected from the local sorting office by the Respondent’s father-in-law on 26 April 2011 and left by him in her house that day. She returned from holiday abroad on 27 April 2011 and read the letter.

On the unusual facts of this case, the date on which the 12 week notice period started to run was highly material. If it commenced on 27 April 2011, it expired on 20 July 2011, the date of the Respondent’s 50th birthday, and she would be entitled to claim a non-actuarially reduced early retirement pension.

The decision of the Supreme Court

In the absence of an express contractual provision, the court had to determine what the implied contractual term should be in terms of when notice of termination of employment should take effect.

The Appellant argued that there was a common law rule, principally derived from landlord and tenant cases, which provided that notice was given when the letter was delivered to its address. The Respondent relied on the approach of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in employment cases to support her case that notice only took effect when it had actually been received by the employee and the employee had either read or had a reasonable opportunity of reading it.

Having reviewed the cases relied on by the parties, the majority of the Supreme Court held that the approach which had been taken by the EAT was correct because:

  • The common law rule in non-employment cases was not as clear and universal as the Appellant suggested and could not necessarily be relied on in this case.
  • The EAT was an expert tribunal familiar with employment practices. Its previous decisions had favoured the approach that, due to the personal nature of the employment contract, and in the absence of an express provision in that contract, the employee must personally see the letter of dismissal.
  • An employer could either make express alternative provision in the contract or ensure notice of termination was received in sufficient time to allow the employment to terminate on a specified day. In addition in this case, the Appellant was fully aware that the Respondent was on holiday and would not be able to open the letter until she returned.
  • Lady Black reviewed the common law cases in further detail to support the finding that that these cases did not have the effect contended for by the Appellant that delivery to the recipient’s agent, who might be a household servant, professional agent or family member (in this case the Respondent’s father in law), amounted to receiving notice on her behalf.
  • Lord Briggs, dissenting, found that the common law cases had long established a rule that embedded an implied term into contracts of employment determinable on notice. Such contracts were only a sub-species of relationship contracts. The rule for relationship contracts was that written notice of termination was given when the document containing it was duly delivered by hand or post to the address of the intended recipient, regardless of whether either the intended recipient or his agent was there to receive it. The rule had a sensible and even-handed policy objective behind it, creating certainty for both parties and representing a fair allocation of risk

Our solicitors’ comments on Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood

Caroline Lewis, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “The ruling is important for employers and employees as the termination date can be decisive in determining an employee’s entitlement to a bonus or other contractual payment, insurance or employee benefits, or the statutory right to claim unfair dismissal and/or redundancy pay, and increased pension rights. While employers may be concerned that this decision creates uncertainty about when notice has taken effect, there are certain practical steps they can take, including drafting their contracts of employment to expressly state when notice is deemed to take effect (e.g. two days after the posting of a letter)”.

The full decision can 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


4.75 Average

195 Reviews

Alkhas K

Excellent service.

Posted 1 week ago

Mathias G

Contacted them regarding my end of employment agreement. Chris Hadrill dealt with it and was done and handed back to employer same day more than happy with there service.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Mark W

Most professional from start to finish offering very a personal service. Most impressive and quick when dealing with the matters in hand.

Posted 1 month ago


Posted 1 month ago


I am very glad I came across Redmans Solicitors. Fantastic service!

Posted 1 month ago


Fantastic communication, always happy to answer queries, highly recommended.

Posted 1 month ago

Wavenie B

They were very straight to the point, friendly and understanding people. I felt they had my best interest. They were easy to get hold of, replies were almost instant. 5/5 for customer service

Posted 1 month ago

Christina P

Caroline was fantastic to work with - extremely knowledgeable, supportive, thorough and honest. I definitely recommend Redmans!

Posted 1 month ago


Very well done and fast support. Professional and reliable. Highly recommended!

Posted 1 month ago

Helene L

They were very knowledgable in the respected area in terms of change in law/regulations that is crucial for the clients who are seeking for legal arvice.

Posted 1 month ago

Sara R

Very helpful and wonderful advice

Posted 1 month ago

Marie D

very good service all digitalised

Posted 1 month ago

Philip H

Chris Hadrill handled my case with great accuracy and efficiency. Basically made it feel like a process without hassle. Doesn't try to expand the case just for greater fees. I value his professional advice highly.

Posted 1 month ago

Michael W

Professional, responsive and supportive - excellent service!

Posted 2 months ago


I was really happy with the service provided. I had to chase a couple of time but despite that, my matter was dealt with in a timely manor. I would use again in the future

Posted 2 months ago

Lee M

Superb service and always available

Posted 2 months ago

Jonathan S

I was very grateful for the support I received from Redmans during a very difficult period. Rana Tandon really got under the skin of my issue and understood what was important to me, steering me carefully and sensibly to an outcome I was very happy with. I would recommend Redmans to anyone else without any reservations whatsoever.

Posted 2 months ago

Mohamed A

Super helpful and efficient, trustworthy service

Posted 2 months ago


efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 2 months ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 2 months ago


Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 2 months ago