YY

Case Summary

An assistant head teacher was summarily dismissed for sending a sexually inappropriate message to a minor while under duress in a coercive relationship, and for failing to report the matter. She appealed on wrongful dismissal grounds. The EAT found the Employment Tribunal erred by treating duress as irrelevant to whether the conduct constituted gross misconduct, and remitted the case for reconsideration on whether the circumstances should be taken into account in objectively assessing whether the breach undermined trust and confidence.

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by assuming that duress could not affect the assessment of whether the claimant's actions constituted a repudiatory breach of contract. The proper approach requires consideration of the circumstances of the breach, including any pressure or duress under which it occurred, when objectively assessing whether the conduct was so serious as to undermine trust and confidence and justify summary dismissal.

• •Whether duress or pressure is relevant to assessing whether an employee has committed gross misconduct entitling summary dismissal
• •Whether a repudiatory breach of contract should be assessed on an objective basis taking into account the circumstances in which the breach occurred
• •The relevance of duress to the assessment of fundamental breach of contract in employment law

Judgment approved by the Court for handing down XX v YY © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 89 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 89 Case No: EA-2024-000009-BA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 15 June 2026 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: XX Appellant - and - YY Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Benjamin Phelps (instructed by Nexa Law Limited) for the Appellant John Ratledge (instructed by DWF LAW LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 4 June 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court for handing down XX v YY © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 89 SUMMARY Breach of contract 1. The claimant was an assistant head teacher who had been in a relationship that was coercive and controlling, during which she was persuaded to send a message of a sexual nature to someone she understood to be a boy under the age of 18, in circumstances in which it was accepted by the respondent that she feared that, if she failed to do so, she and her children would be at risk of serious harm. The claimant did not report the matter in the 18 months after she sent the message. It was then reported to the respondent by the person with whom the claimant had been having the relationship. 2. The claimant was summarily dismissed and brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal asserting complaints of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. All complaints failed. 3. This appeal was limited to the complaint of wrongful dismissal. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in analysing the complaint on the basis that pressure or duress was irrelevant to whether there h…