Mrs E Disney v Personal Security Service Limited T/a Personal Security Service Secure Transport — 2020

The Tribunal first refused the Respondent's application to strike out the claim. It applied Rule 37 and the principles in Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James, and found that the Claimant's conduct had not been dishonest, vexatious or unreasonable to the extent that a fair hearing was impossible. The Tribunal accepted that there were different versions of some documents and some late disclosure, but it found no deliberate and persistent disregard of tribunal orders.

On the substantive facts, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had two separate periods of employment with the Respondent. The first ran from 18 July 2016 to 4 August 2017, when her resignation took effect. The second began on 1 November 2017, when she returned as an HR Administrator working from home. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the two periods were continuous, and found there was no agreement to preserve continuity between them.

The Tribunal found that the Claimant's employment on the second occasion ended on 21 October 2019. It relied on the emails sent on 20 and 21 October 2019 and the termination letter of 21 October 2019, and applied the authorities on effective date of termination including Brown v Southall & Knight, Gisda CYF v Barratt and Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood. The Claimant knew by 21 October 2019 that the Respondent had terminated her employment.

The unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims were dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination, as required by sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal also dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay complaints because they were brought out of time under section 23 ERA 1996 and Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It held that the relevant complaints should have been brought well before December 2019, that ACAS conciliation did not rescue already-expired claims, and that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented them in time.