Claimant v W. G. Bradwell Ltd — 2022

The claimant, an HGV driver, said an incident on 21 October 2021 caused damage to his vehicle and that he was dismissed on 27 October 2021 after being suspended. The respondent said the claimant resigned when told he was suspended, and that his account of the incident was not reliable.

The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant did not show that the damage to his vehicle occurred in the way he described. It preferred the respondent's evidence about the circumstances of the damage, including evidence from Thompsons Commercials and Mr Havercroft, and found the claimant's account vague and inconsistent with the extent of the damage shown in the photographs and repair invoice.

The tribunal then found that on 27 October 2021 the claimant quit his job after being told that he was suspended. It accepted Mr Mather's evidence that the claimant reacted by saying he was being called a liar, referred to John Brennan's case, cleared his belongings, handed in his keys and fuel card, and later attempted to row back from a verbal resignation in his letter of 31 October 2021. The tribunal held that a lawful resignation had been given and could not be unilaterally revoked.

Applying section 95(1) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. Because there had been no dismissal, the claim for written reasons for dismissal under section 92 ERA 1996 also failed. The tribunal therefore did not consider remedy.