Ms E Williams For the v - Ms S-J Wood — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 25 July 2023, Employment Judge G D Davison dealt with the parties named in the claim and the viability of the breach of contract claim. The tribunal added Aim High Fostering Services Ltd as respondent and struck out the claim against the initially named respondent, Ms D Burns. The point that the claimant had not named the company as a prospective respondent when contacting ACAS was not pursued.

On the substance, the tribunal found that the claimant had been offered the post of full time Supervising Social Worker on 13 May 2022, but the offer was expressly subject to referencing. The claimant returned the relevant form, the respondent sought references, and the claimant accepted that the contract was subject to referencing. The tribunal recorded that the current employer's reference was not favourable, after which the respondent rescinded the offer. A later abbreviated reference did not change the position.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the first reference was malicious or that the respondent acted unlawfully in seeking references. It held that there was no legal requirement for the respondent to give separate notice before contacting the referees named by the claimant, and that there was no unlawfulness in the way the references were sought. On the undisputed facts, the tribunal found there was no valid and enforceable contract of employment.

Applying rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and referring to the need for caution and a realistic assessment, including Ezsias, Ahir and HHJ K Kaul v Ministry of Justice + 2, the tribunal concluded that the breach of contract claim had no reasonable prospects of success. It therefore struck out the claim and did not need to consider a deposit order.