Mr A Watson, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's present claim and, alternatively, for a deposit order. The tribunal described the present case as an unfair dismissal and notice pay claim. It also examined the earlier claim 3301938/2020 because the respondent said the withdrawal of that claim engaged Rule 52 and related estoppel arguments.

The tribunal refused strike out on the no reasonable prospect ground. Although it accepted in principle that dissatisfaction with a disciplinary outcome alone would not found constructive dismissal, it read the claimant's resignation letter as a whole and held that paragraph 20 of the ET1 did not capture the full narrative relied on for resignation. It therefore could not say the claim was bound to fail.

The tribunal also rejected the submission that the claimant had acted unreasonably or abusively by issuing two overlapping claims and later withdrawing the first. It found that the first claim had been accepted against Mr Butler rather than HMPPS and was therefore a nullity because it should have been rejected under Rule 12. Alternatively, even if the first claim had been accepted against HMPPS, Rule 52 did not bar the present claim because the second claim had already been presented before the first was withdrawn. The deposit application was refused, and the case was listed for a later final hearing, with the judge recusing himself from that hearing.