Cree Odimah-Webster v Goma Limited T/A Caia — 2023

A separate breach of contract/wrongful dismissal complaint had already been dismissed after the claimant withdrew it. The tribunal also refused an application to add an unauthorised deduction from wages claim. Applying the Selkent and Vaughan amendment principles, it held the proposed claim would raise new factual and legal inquiries about any tax overpayment and resulting loss, and noted that the claimant had already received an HMRC refund of £1,900.

On the facts, the claimant began work on 28 March 2022 and repeatedly asked for a written contract. She was later given a statement of main terms and signed it on 11 May 2022. The tribunal found she also asked for payslips on 1 June 2022 and received one on 2 June 2022. It accepted her evidence that Mrs Vir had on occasion asked her to say whatever was necessary when cancelling flights or appointments, but distinguished that from the later written email to a contractor.

The tribunal found that on 9 June 2022 the claimant sent an email from her work account about moving furniture, referring to her "very difficult boss" and saying the furniture was worth more than £10,000; the email was accidentally sent to Mr Vir and the statement about a house manager was untrue. After a probationary meeting, Mr Lang dismissed her for failure to demonstrate professional behaviour, saying the conduct could have caused loss of business and damaged reputation.

Applying ERA s.104(1)(b) and the burden of proof described in Smith v Hayle Town Council, the tribunal held the reason for dismissal was the respondent's view that she had been unprofessional in writing to a third party, not that she had asserted statutory rights to written particulars or payslips. It found those issues had been resolved before dismissal, and the automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed.