Claimant v Fueltone Limited (In Liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that although the claimant did not resign by words, her conduct in requesting a P45 amounted to a resignation. The creation and furnishing of a P45 with a leaving date of 17 January 2025 was definitive evidence of termination of the employment contract by resignation, not dismissal. Therefore the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment.
Facts
The claimant worked as an administration manager for a fuel additive company from October 2019. On 19 December 2024, she was told the company would go into liquidation and not to return to work. As a single parent of three, she secured part-time employment with Enerion starting 20 January 2025. She requested her P45 for the new employer's payroll, and a P45 was issued showing a leaving date of 17 January 2025. The company went into liquidation in February 2025 and the Insolvency Service rejected her redundancy payment claim on the basis she had resigned.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim, finding that although the claimant never stated she was resigning orally or in writing, her conduct in requesting a P45 amounted to a resignation. The tribunal held that while requesting a P45 is ambiguous, the actual creation and furnishing of a P45 with a specific leaving date is definitive evidence of termination by resignation, not dismissal.
Practical note
Requesting and accepting a P45 from an employer can constitute resignation by conduct, even in the absence of express words of resignation and even where the employee subjectively believed they remained employed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001235/2025
- Decision date
- 7 January 2026
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- administration manager
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No