I’ll put my hands up and admit that the day job hasn’t given me the chance to read Buckland yet. However, I am intrigued by this notion of ‘fixing’ a breach of the implied term…

If my employer has done something so bad that I am entitled to say that I no longer trust him, but if he can nevertheless ‘fix’ the wrong he has done: Who is the judge of whether he has ‘fixed’ it? Obviously the test can’t be whether I actually trust him now (but if I do give him another chance then clearly I have waived my right to claim constructive dismissal). But an objective test strikes me as very problematic too: In most implied term cases, there has been a genuine breakdown of trust. It seems unduly harsh on the employee to say that an employer who has badly misbehaved can go through the motions and sign letters put in front of him by his dutiful HR manager, and thus absolve himself of liability for his wrongdoing, when the trust is in fact long dead and buried?