In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant, who was Spanish and had limited English, was employed by the respondent from 5 December 2015 to 4 January 2019 and presented a claim for constructive unfair dismissal on 4 March 2019 after the ACAS early conciliation process. The respondent said the claim lacked sufficient particularity, so the hearing was converted from a merits trial to a preliminary hearing. The claimant clarified that her case relied on a cumulative course of conduct in August and September 2018, including alleged inaccuracies in notes of an 11 August meeting, alleged pressure to sign those notes, disciplinary allegations about what was said at meetings, disputed accounts by HR and other employees, and what she said was an inadequate response to her complaints.

The judge held that the key facts were sharply disputed and that, if the claimant's account were substantially accepted at a full hearing, the conduct alleged could amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. He also rejected the respondent's submission that resignation on GP advice meant the claim could not succeed, holding that it was at least arguable that the advice followed a state of health caused by the respondent's conduct. On that basis, the claim did not fail the Rule 37 strike-out test of having no reasonable prospect of success.

The judge likewise refused a deposit order under Rule 39. He accepted that the claimant faced practical difficulties, including her limited English and the fact that some documents appeared to undermine her case, but he noted that she was making serious allegations against several employees and that her grievance about Mr Kurylo's conduct in relation to the meeting notes had been partially upheld. The result was that both applications were dismissed and the constructive unfair dismissal claim was allowed to continue to a full merits hearing.