N Ramluchumun v University of Surrey — 2022

The claimant brought a breach of contract claim arising out of his employment as Head of Service Transition from 6 April 2020 to 5 October 2020. He relied on two alleged express terms: paragraph 13(f) of the May 2018 Staff Handbook, which said responsibility for monitoring the probationary period lay with the line manager, and a sentence in the 5 March 2020 HR offer email saying that during the six-month probation period he would be supported with his development into the role.

The tribunal held that neither provision was apt for incorporation as a contractual term. On the handbook wording, it found the phrase concerned monitoring the probationary period itself, not managing performance, and in any event was too uncertain to create a legally enforceable obligation. On the email wording, it found the support language vague and aspirational, particularly for a senior role, and held that it did not give rise to an enforceable contractual right. It also held that any attempt to use the email term to complain about the dismissal itself fell within the Johnson exclusion zone.

The tribunal rejected reliance on the non-contractual Probationary Assessment Review Procedure and on the White implied term. It considered that the claim, as advanced, was essentially about dismissal and did not identify a separate pre-existing cause of action or a claim for a Gunton extension. The tribunal therefore treated the asserted probation-related terms as failing to found a damages claim for the dismissal.

On the PILON issue, however, the tribunal held that the respondent could not rely on the amended April 2020 handbook clause permitting payment in lieu of notice because the updated handbook was not communicated to the claimant. It therefore found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract when his employment was ended summarily on 5 October 2020.

For remedy, the tribunal said damages were limited to notice pay. The respondent had paid the claimant a sum equivalent to three months' salary on 30 October 2020, and the claimant therefore had no loss arising from the breach. The claim for breach of contract was dismissed and no award of damages was made.