Mr J Wilson v Sisaltech Ltd — 2025

Mr J Wilson was employed by Sisaltech Ltd as a marketing executive from 1 September 2023 under a contract signed on 31 August 2023. The claimant lodged claims on 10 June 2025 for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract, but later confirmed that he was not pursuing unfair dismissal because he did not have two years’ service. The tribunal found that the contract referred to a Company Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, but that no such policy ever existed and, in any event, the contract stated that any policy did not form part of the terms and conditions of employment.

On 2 May 2025 the respondent told the claimant that his employment was being terminated because it did not believe he could provide the level of marketing required for its growth plans. He was given one month’s notice and was not required to work that period. The tribunal found that he was paid his one month’s notice in full, together with accrued holidays, accrued commission and salary. It rejected the contention that the respondent was contractually required to issue warnings, hold a capability or performance meeting, conduct a consultation process, or otherwise follow a disciplinary procedure before ending the employment.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that the dismissal was wrongful because notice was given verbally rather than in writing. It held that the only contractual requirement was one month’s notice, which was in fact paid, so no loss flowed from any lack of written notice. The separate breach of contract case based on the implied term of trust and confidence also failed. Relying on Johnson v Unisys and related authorities, the tribunal held that the implied term does not apply to the manner of dismissal, and that the claimant’s complaints about the pre-dismissal decision and lack of process could not succeed at common law.

A further point about a possible reference claim did not assist the claimant. The tribunal found no valid claim on the evidence and, in any event, no evidence of loss from any alleged statement about a reference. It accepted that any discussion about a reference was post-termination. The tribunal concluded that none of the claimant’s claims were well-founded and dismissed them all.