Mr D Gwilliam v TEL Engineering Limited t/a Trolex Engineering — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under rule 37(1)(a) and/or rule 37(1)(b), or alternatively to order a deposit under rule 39(1), together with a costs application under rule 76. The claimant had worked for the respondent as a Quality Inspector from 28 April 1986, and the respondent relied on allegations that he had brought a knife into the workplace, made concerning social media postings, and behaved improperly during the suspension period.

The tribunal refused strike out under rule 37(1)(a), applying the approach in Balls v Downham Market High School and College. It held that the high threshold was not met because there was a crucial factual dispute about whether the object the claimant had in his possession on 13 March 2018 was in fact a bladed knife, and that dispute had not been tested because the respondent chose not to hold a disciplinary hearing before dismissing him.

The tribunal also refused strike out under rule 37(1)(b), applying Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, because it was not satisfied that the conduct relied on by the respondent showed deliberate and persistent disregard of procedural steps or made a fair trial impossible. It then refused a deposit order, saying the claim was not an appropriate one for a deposit given the reason for dismissal, the central factual dispute, and the respondent's departures from the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures as identified in the reasons. The costs application was also refused. No merits finding or monetary award was made in this judgment.