The claimant claimed that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed or in the alternative constructively dismissed, by the respondent. He had been engaged as a consultant and later CEO and contended that he had not, at any point, resigned his position. The respondent asserted that a letter from the claimant's solicitors effectively amounted to a resignation. The letter stressed that the working relationship had deteriorated and a huge degree of mistrust existed. The claimant's solicitors later robustly denied that the letter signalled the claimant's resignation and that it was instead simply illustrating that the "working relationship was unworkable". The tribunal did not accept this despite concerted attempts by the claimant's solicitor to clarify their intended meaning. It was held,