Ms Q Slater v Allen Ford (UK) Ltd — 2021

Ms Slater had been employed by Allen Ford (UK) Ltd for less than two years. In December 2019 the police contacted the parties about a fuel card that had been used to fill one of the respondent's vehicles, which was the claimant's company car. The tribunal recorded that she initially denied knowledge of the card being used, but later accepted that she had used it, saying it had been loaned to her by a friend. She was then taken through a disciplinary process and dismissed for the use of the card.

The tribunal noted that the claimant's case remained a narrative document despite directions given by EJ Crosfill at a case management hearing on 19 March 2021. The final amended claim ran to 26 pages and did not set out the alleged heads of claim in a form the respondent could answer or the tribunal could adjudicate. The claim for notice pay had been stated as no longer being pursued and was treated as withdrawn. The commission and overtime/payment claims failed for lack of proper particulars, and the tribunal also said the claimant had not complied with the order requiring her to identify the basis and amount of those claims.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant had not completed two years' service. The tribunal also rejected the constructive dismissal-style allegation of breach of mutual trust and confidence, the claim for time off to care for a dependent, and the disability discrimination point said to arise from the claimant's mother's disability, noting that the claimant accepted there was no disability discrimination claim being brought. The direct sex discrimination claim also failed because there was no pleaded basis for the comparison with a male manager.

The whistleblowing claims did not succeed. The tribunal said the pre-dismissal detriment claim disclosed no identifiable detriment, and the automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 had no plausible causal connection to any alleged disclosure because the claimed disclosures were said to be about a year before dismissal and the dismissal was explained by the claimant's admitted use of the fuel card and her initial lack of candour. The tribunal added that any remaining, hard-to-disentangle claims were dismissed or struck out for failure to follow EJ Crosfill's order or because they had no reasonable prospect of success.