For further information or advice in relation to dealing with employee dismissals, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
In the recent case, Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice [2023] (EFDCA), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) held that an Employment Tribunal erred finding that an employee’s resignation in the heat of the moment was really intended. This case study provides a detailed examination of the case, highlighting significant findings and the resulting implications.
29 November 2023
Case Study
On 19 February 2020, Mr Omar resigned from his position at EFDCA following a heated altercation with Ms Skinner, his line manager. Despite asserting that EFDCA’s CEO, Ms Anyanwu, had suggested considering an alternative role in a subsequent meeting on the same day, Mr. Omar faced resistance. At a meeting on 21 February, Ms Anyanwu informed Mr Omar that Ms Skinner no longer wanted to work with him, affirming his resignation.
Although Mr. Omar initially confirmed his resignation in writing, he later sought to retract it. Mr Omar even writing to the employer informing them that the resignation was “in the heat of the moment”. This request was refused, and, at the end of the month-long notice period, the claimant’s employment ended. EFDCA refused the retraction, deeming Mr Omar’s employment terminated on 19 February.
The Employment Tribunal’s initial ruling favoured the employer, holding that Mr Omar had genuinely intended to resign on 19 February. In particular, it found that the words Mr Omar had used were clear and unequivocal and that he had also agreed to put it in writing.
Mr Omar appealed this decision, leading to a review by the EAT.
Case Study
The EAT’s review outlined the following crucial principles governing resignations and dismissals:
It is a fine line, the EAT concluded, between a case where notice was not “really intended” and where the giver changed their mind after the fact, and it was for the Tribunal to determine which side of the line the case falls.
The EAT found errors in the Tribunal’s approach. It had failed to consider the crucial question: had the claimant “really intended” to resign? Additionally, deficiencies were noted in the tribunal’s findings on key aspects, leading to a lack of clarity on Mr Omar’s exact words and the events during subsequent meetings.
Mr Omar’s appeal was therefore successful; the case was remitted back to the Tribunal.
The EAT’s decision in Omar v EFDCA provides clarity on “heat of the moment” resignation and dismissal principles, emphasising an objective analysis from the standpoint of a reasonable bystander.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More