Claimant v Oakbank Plant Hire Ltd — 2020

The claimant presented his ET1 on 11 March 2020 and originally ticked unfair dismissal. At the preliminary hearing on 20 October 2020, he explained that he had less than two years' service and that his real complaint was that the respondent had failed to follow a contractual disciplinary procedure before dismissing him. The tribunal allowed the amendment so that the claim was clearly pleaded as wrongful dismissal, accepting that the contractual point had been foreshadowed in the claim form and that there would be little prejudice to the respondent.

The tribunal then considered the respondent's strike out application. It accepted the claimant's later position that the disciplinary procedure in his contract was not contractual, and it also accepted that he had been paid his contractual notice. On that basis, the tribunal found there was no contractual term that had been breached and no basis on which a wrongful dismissal claim could succeed. It noted that the claimant might have regarded the dismissal as unfair, but he did not have the service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Applying Rule 37 and the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that it was just and proportionate to strike it out. The proceedings were therefore brought to an end without any award of compensation or other remedy.