Mr R Williams v University of Leicester — 2021

The tribunal was considering whether the claim should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. Employment Judge Brewer held that both claims should be struck out under rule 37 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The judge refused an oral application to treat a document headed "Revised details of claim" as an amendment, because no prior application had been made and the respondent had no notice, but also considered whether that document would make any material difference and concluded that it would not.

On the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the claimant had not properly pleaded the relevant circumstances of danger, why they were said to be serious and imminent, or what protective steps he took. The judge held that, on the claimant's own case, nothing material occurred after late March or early April 2020, yet he did not resign until 11 August 2020 and worked until 8 September 2020. That delay meant there was no reasonable prospect of a tribunal finding that the statutory test of serious and imminent danger was met.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal treated it as a last straw case but found that no last straw was pleaded. The matters relied on were the respondent's handling of Covid-19 arrangements in March and early April 2020, including consultation on risk assessment, staffing rota, and the requirement that maintenance staff continue to attend work. Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the judge found no reasonable prospect of establishing a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, noting that the claimant's own case indicated that the respondent had carried out a risk assessment, considered the work safe, and regarded maintenance staff and at least some of their work as critical.

The tribunal also found no reasonable prospect on causation or affirmation. The resignation letter gave numerous reasons for resigning, most of which were unrelated to the pleaded case, and the tribunal considered there was little reasonable prospect of showing that the respondent's handling of Covid-19 was a significant or effective cause of resignation. In addition, the claimant continued working and being paid for about four months after the matters complained of in late March or early April 2020, and the tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of showing that the contract had not been affirmed. No remedy was awarded because both claims were struck out.