Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies Role of Duress in Wrongful Dismissal Cases
The EAT ruled that tribunals must consider duress when assessing if employee conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal for misconduct.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided significant guidance on how employment tribunals should assess wrongful dismissal claims when an employee acts under pressure or duress. The ruling emphasises that such factors are relevant when determining whether conduct justifies summary dismissal for gross misconduct.
Background to the Appeal
The case involved an assistant head teacher who was summarily dismissed after sending a sexual message to a minor. It was accepted by the respondent that the claimant sent this message while in a coercive and controlling relationship, fearing that failure to comply would result in serious harm to herself and her children. Despite these circumstances, her claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination failed, and the initial tribunal found that she had been lawfully dismissed for gross misconduct.
The EAT Ruling
The claimant appealed against the finding of wrongful dismissal. His Honour Judge James Tayler concluded that the original tribunal had erred by assuming that duress was irrelevant to the objective assessment of a repudiatory breach of contract.
The judgment highlights that, when deciding if conduct has so undermined the relationship of mutual trust and confidence that an employer can no longer retain an employee, all surrounding circumstances must be evaluated. This includes the pressure an employee was under at the time of the alleged breach.
Implications for Employers
The EAT noted that while duress is not necessarily a complete defence to a breach of contract, it is a critical factor in the objective assessment of whether a dismissal was lawful. The matter has been remitted to the original employment tribunal, which must now balance the gravity of the claimant's safeguarding failures against the pressures she faced during the period in question.
This decision serves as a reminder that objective assessments of misconduct must be nuanced, taking into account the specific context of an employee's actions, rather than applying a blanket approach to disciplinary findings.
Read the entire judgment here: XX v YY [2026] EAT 89
