Mr L Phythian v Toomey Renno Limited STRIKE OUT — 2018

Mr Phythian presented his claim on 3 August 2018 after working for Toomey Renno Limited as a Service Advisor from 30 August 2016 to 5 May 2018. On the claim form he ticked boxes for “other payments” and another claim the tribunal could deal with, and he wrote “breach of contract” in the narrative section. He also said that his reviews had been positive, that he had been booked on a final course to qualify as a Renno Service Advisor the following week, and that another employee had been dismissed without notice.

The respondent said it did not understand the basis of the claim and applied for strike out. The tribunal and the parties then exchanged a series of case management letters and disclosure requests. At an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Goodrich, the claimant did not attend. A deposit order of £100 was made, and the claimant was ordered to provide further particulars setting out the basis of the claim. The tribunal also asked whether the complaint was really that the claimant had been dismissed summarily without notice and explained that, if so, the available remedy would be limited to contractual notice pay.

Despite those directions, the claimant did not provide a clear statement of what breach of contract was alleged. The tribunal recorded further correspondence in which the claimant’s representatives continued to seek disclosure before formulating the claim, while the respondent maintained that the case remained unclear. The tribunal noted that the claimant had less than two years’ service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, and that his draft witness statement still did not make the claim clear.

In the final judgment, Employment Judge Hyde held that the claimant and his solicitors had failed to comply with the basic requirement to set out the claim with sufficient clarity. The tribunal concluded that there was little likelihood of a fair trial or of justice being done, and that there were no reasonable prospects of success. The claim was therefore struck out forthwith under Rule 37(1)(a) and/or (c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded.