Mr A Izatt v Energetics Design & Build Limited — 2022

The claim arose from the claimant's employment with the respondent, Energetics Design & Build Limited, which began on 16 March 2020 and ended on 14 July 2021. The original claim form included unfair dismissal under section 94 ERA 1996, direct age discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010, and breach of contract. At a preliminary hearing on 10 December 2021, the claimant accepted that the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because he had not completed the required period of continuous service, and he later confirmed that he was no longer pursuing the age discrimination complaint.

The hearing on 28 January 2022 dealt with the respondent's strike-out application on the breach of contract claim. The claimant said he had been dismissed on performance-related grounds and believed the contract required a written warning before dismissal for underperformance. The respondent relied on clause 18.1.1 of the contract, which allowed termination after probation on three months' written notice, and clause 18.4, which permitted payment in lieu of notice. The claimant accepted that he had received three months' notice pay.

The tribunal held that the respondent had relied on clause 18.1.1, not clause 18.1.2. On that basis, a written warning was not required, and paying the claimant in lieu of notice was within the contract. The tribunal found the breach of contract claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, noting that the terms were plain and not ambiguous and referring to Cox v Adecco in the context of strike-out guidance.

The judgment records that, to the extent the unfair dismissal and age discrimination complaints were still live in any sense, they were formally dismissed. No monetary award was made.