Mr T Duncan v Unity Property Services Limited — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing listed to decide whether the claim had little or no reasonable prospect of success and should be the subject of a deposit order or be struck out. The claimant clarified that he was seeking compensation for two alleged breaches of contract: first, that the respondent had acted unreasonably and unfairly in the way it conducted his probationary reviews and then dismissed him at the end of probation without grounds to conclude that his performance was unsatisfactory; and second, that he had been required to work at a different office, about a mile away from the usual place of work in his contract.

The tribunal accepted that the contract contained a six-month probation clause, but it did not accept that clause 1.3 limited the respondent's clear right under clause 8.2 to terminate the contract on one week's notice. The dismissal letter of 20 May 2019 stated that the claimant's performance had not reached the required standard and gave one week's notice expiring on 27 May 2019. Because the respondent terminated in accordance with clause 8.2, the tribunal held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of proving loss capable of being compensated in damages arising from the handling of probation or the decision to dismiss.

On the relocation issue, the tribunal held that even if requiring the claimant to work at another office was a breach of contract, he had not shown any compensable loss. It noted that the alternative office was relatively close to the place specified in the contract as his usual place of work. For those reasons, the tribunal struck out the claim because it had no reasonable prospect of success.