Ben Russell v Cavalry Claims Services Limited — 2025

The claimant complained of unfair dismissal after the respondent closed its Norwich office and required claims handlers to work from its Colchester office. The tribunal found that the claimant had not resigned; his employment ended because the respondent acted on his refusal to relocate to the Colchester office.

The tribunal found that the move was not arbitrary. The respondent needed larger office space, the Norwich lease was ending, and Colchester was considered better value and better for recruitment. The claimant's role remained available, so the tribunal found this was not a redundancy situation.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent fairly dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason. It found that requiring office-based work at Colchester, and dismissing the claimant when he refused to work there, was within the range of reasonable responses, while recognising that the claimant's family circumstances made the move difficult for him.