in person v Respondent — 2025

The claimant brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim. The respondent applied to strike out the claim or, alternatively, for a deposit order. Its case was that the claimant relied on matters going back to March 2021, that he had delayed too long, had affirmed any breach by continuing to work and take pay, and that the real reason for resignation was that he had obtained alternative employment at a higher grade and pay.

The tribunal did not decide the factual disputes at this stage. It recorded that the background was significantly disputed and could not be meaningfully assessed on the summary application. The claimant referred to a grievance in September 2021, partial resolution, a change of management, and later internal applications for promotion or alternative roles within the department that he said were affected by adverse perceptions, low sift scores and a lack of feedback.

The tribunal found that the claimant's account of the events said to amount to the final straw, including his unsuccessful application for a Technical Specialist role between September 2022 and December 2022, could not be said on a summary assessment to have no reasonable prospect of success. It said the respondent's arguments about anonymous sifting would need to be tested in evidence, and it was not prepared to conclude that the claim was destined to fail.

The tribunal also noted the claimant's financial circumstances, including his evidence that he was in debt, had no assets and had family responsibilities. It said a deposit order could operate as a bar to him pursuing the claim. The respondent's application was therefore refused and the claims were allowed to proceed, although the claimant was warned that constructive dismissal cases are often difficult to prove and that costs could follow if the evidence did not support his case.