It sounds like a strange question. When an employee resigns that should be the end of the working relationship with their employer, subject to the applicable notice period, otherwise certainty is undermined. And employers need to have certainty. They are entitled to know that they are in a position to recruit a replacement, without having to worry that the resignation was genuine. In large part the law recognises this need for certainty. The general rule is that unambiguous words of resignation may be taken at face value. In the 1981 case of Sothern v Franks Charlesly & Co, the office manager of a firm of solicitors attended a partnership meeting and said, "I am resigning." The Court of Appeal held that if the words were unambiguous, then there was no room to consider what the employee actually intended or what a reasonable employer might have assumed she intended. And so certainty prevailed. By now though I'm sure you sense the coming of a "but" and you'd be right. There are exceptions, some of which we can understand: And so when a mentally disabled employee used unambiguous words of resignation after a row with his employer in Barclay v City of Glasgow Council 1983 IRLR 313 it was no surprise that the court decided there was a duty on employers to take into account the special circumstances of the employee. Similarly in Greater Glasgow Health Board v MacKay EAT 742/87, a lady suffering from stress and an anxiety state wrote out a seemingly unambiguous letter of resignation. The court decided that she had not rationally and genuinely offered her resignation and the employer must have known she was suffering from stress at the time. In such cases the employer's refusal to allow the resignation turns that refusal into a dismissal. What about an angry or emotional resignation? In Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham EAT 250/91 the employee reacted angrily to what he perceived to be a humiliating warning, and after some provocation threw down his keys and drove off. On appeal the court fell short of saying that there is a duty on employers to investigate the real intention behind an employee's resignation but suggested that a sensible employer would allow a cooling off period before accepting the resignation. A recent decision, Hinsley v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary UKEAT/0200/10/DM has thrown up another variation. In this case a probationer police officer resigned although her employer tried to persuade her not to. She was subsequently diagnosed with depression and decided to retract her resignation. Her employer however believed that certain legislation prevented them from accepting the resignation and therefore declined. On appeal it was found that there was no such legislative restriction, however for our purposes because the employee was accepted to have a disability it was a reasonable adjustment to allow her to retract her resignation. And so employers need to be cautious. In the vast majority of cases resignation will be a straightforward process, however you will be well served by looking beyond the apparent certainty of a resignation to the characteristics of the person handing in that resignation and any circumstances that may explain their decision to leave. Exit interviews are therefore a good idea as they can help identify special circumstances that may exist to taint the resignation.