Case 1405103/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr B Gill - counsel — 2019
- Case reference
- 1405103/2018
- Decision date
- 13 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 9 September 2019 in Bristol, Employment Judge O'Rourke dealt with Mr B Smart's constructive unfair dismissal claim against On Direct Business Services Ltd t/a Cloud Direct. The claimant applied for strike out or a deposit order and said the respondent had not complied with earlier disclosure directions. The tribunal refused the strike-out/deposit application, noting that no evidence had yet been heard, that any alleged breaches would still have to be proved and shown to be fundamental, and that the remaining elements of the constructive unfair dismissal claim would have to be determined at the final hearing.
The tribunal also recorded that the respondent's response was poorly drafted and ordered it to set out its position more clearly. On disclosure, it ordered the respondent within seven days either to provide unredacted versions of the disputed documents or to explain the redactions. It treated some wider disclosure requests, including requests about draft settlement agreements with other employees and a request for an expert report on alleged discrepancies in the native email file for the 3 September 2018 email, as disproportionate or not relevant to the resignation decision.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had not seen the 3 September 2018 email at the time he resigned, so later arguments about whether that email was a mistake did not affect the reason for resignation. The matter remained listed for final hearing on 11 to 14 November 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused the claimant's strike-out/deposit-order application and made disclosure orders, but it did not determine the merits of the constructive unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Overriding Objective
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.