Mr Graham, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2026

This was a preliminary hearing on 18 October 2019 before Employment Judge Nicol sitting alone. The claimant, Stewart Reader, applied under Rule 37 to strike out the respondent's response in whole or part, or alternatively for a deposit order. No evidence was heard; the tribunal relied on the documents, the parties' oral submissions, and the authorities cited. The underlying complaints were unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal arising from the claimant's dismissal by South Tyneside Council, his employer since 1 September 2001.

The tribunal summarised the employment history and the disputed dismissal process. Eight accusations had been made against the claimant and he was suspended. A disciplinary panel found all eight accusations well founded and summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct. On appeal, only three accusations were upheld and the appeal panel reinstated him with a final written warning and back pay. The respondent then suspended him again and later dismissed him without a further hearing. The claimant argued that reinstatement was a final decision that the respondent was not entitled, in effect, to overrule, and that he was dismissed without being allowed to present his case or mitigation.

The tribunal dismissed the strike-out/deposit application. It held that it could not say that the respondent had no prospect, or little prospect, of succeeding with its response. The tribunal noted there were clear findings of disciplinary offences, that the respondent said summary dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, and that the respondent had arguable grounds based on gross misconduct or, alternatively, some other substantial reason connected with trust and confidence, perceived risk to children, reputational damage, and budget impact.

The tribunal also noted issues that would require evidence at a full hearing, including the precise reason for the second dismissal, whether the earlier reinstatement amounted to affirmation or waiver of breach, whether contributory fault arose from the appeal findings, and whether the second dismissal might prove procedurally unfair. It referred to Kisoka v Ratnpinyotip (t/a Ryevale Day Nursery) as an authority discussed in relation to an employer in appropriate circumstances not following an appeal decision. The tribunal made no indication of the eventual outcome and directed that the complaints proceed to the full hearing.