(sitting alone) Mr P Burns v Represented by:- Ms A Bennie - Counsel Entcorp UK Limited — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out Mr Burns' constructive unfair dismissal claim, or alternatively to order a deposit. The issue was whether the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, or little reasonable prospects, on the basis that the claimant's resignation was not connected to any alleged breach of contract. No evidence was led; the judge proceeded on the productions and submissions of counsel.

The tribunal recorded a chronology showing that the respondent was restructuring from around November 2017, that the claimant agreed to a telephone interview for another job on 24 January 2018, and that an email on 25 January 2018 referred to him agreeing to be redeployed. On 2 March 2018 the claimant emailed seeking to be made redundant and set out concerns about the process, and on 7 March 2018 he said he was in the process of sending his resignation letter. He resigned with immediate effect on 9 March 2018, stating that he had no choice because of a fundamental breach of contract and breach of trust and confidence, and he lodged a grievance the same day.

The respondent argued that the documents showed the claimant had already decided to leave and that his resignation was really because he had not secured a package and had another job to go to. The claimant argued that there was a course of conduct from November 2017 onwards, that the territory issue and other aspects of the process formed part of the reason for resignation, and that credibility and reliability would need to be assessed at a full hearing. The judge preferred the claimant's submissions and held that the documents did not show that there was no reasonable, or little reasonable, prospect of proving that the alleged fundamental breach played some part in the resignation.

Accordingly, both the strike out application and the deposit order application failed. The tribunal said the case should proceed to a hearing to determine the substantive claim, and noted that the claimant might need to clarify the precise basis of the constructive dismissal case so that the issues could be focused for the next hearing.