In Person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant brought a breach of contract claim arising from his dismissal by Hyperoptic Ltd after he drilled into a hot water pipe on 12 July 2019, causing damage estimated at about £10,000. His unfair dismissal complaint had already been struck out because he did not have two years' service, and his notice pay claim was also struck out, leaving only the question whether the respondent breached the employment contract by not following its disciplinary procedure in the handbook.

The tribunal found that the claimant's contractual notice period was four weeks. It accepted the respondent's evidence that, as a matter of practice, it did not go through the full handbook disciplinary procedure for some employees with less than two years' service, and it held that the contract signed by the claimant was the complete and true agreement between the parties. Clause 18.4 stated that the grievance and disciplinary procedures were policy documents only and did not form part of the claimant's terms and conditions, so the respondent was entitled not to follow them. Clause 18.3, which said the procedure would normally be followed before certain action, was not inconsistent with that conclusion.

Accordingly, the tribunal held that the respondent did not breach the claimant's contract when it did not follow the handbook disciplinary procedure. It also found that, even if the procedure had been contractual and should have provided notice of allegations, accompaniment and a right of appeal, the claimant accepted that the meeting with Mr Woodward would still have taken place on 22 July 2019 and an appeal after dismissal would not have added time before dismissal. Applying Boyo and Gunton, and the principle in Focsa Services v Birkett that damages are limited to the additional time the proper procedure would have taken, the claimant suffered no loss of pay and no compensatory damages were recoverable.