Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim Against Employer

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 3305255/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondents: [redacted]

(2) [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] at: Watford Tribunal (by CVP) On: 3, 4, 5, 6 February 2026

Before: Employment Judge Cowen

Representation Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

For the reasons given in an oral Judgment on 6 February 2026:

1. The Claimant’s employer was the First Respondent. 2. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal succeeds and a remedy hearing will be heard on 8 May 2026 by CVP.

Approved by Employment Judge Cowen

6 February 2026 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON

8 April 2026 ......................................................................

...................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE

Notes

Case Number: 3305255/2024 Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the [NAME]. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:

www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

1 of 7

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING

Heard at: Bury St Edmunds (by CVP)

On: 23 January 2026

Before: Employment Judge Laidler (sitting alone)

Appearances For the Claimant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted]

JUDGMENT

1. When the claimant responded to the case management order of [APPELLANT] J [APPELLANT] on 7 July 2025 this was the provision of further information for which leave to amend was not required.

2. If the tribunal were wrong in that decision and leave to amend was required, it is granted.

3. The respondent’s application at this Hearing to postpone the full merits hearing listed to commence on the 3 February 2026 is refused.

REASONS

1. The claim in this matter was received on the 17 May 2024. It is a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal only.

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

2 of 7

2. In the Grounds of Complaint served with the ET1 the claimant pleaded at paragraph 11:

On 5 April 2021, the Claimant accepted the offer of the Head of [NAME] at [RESPONDENT] and the service agreement was executed on 5 May 2021. It is averred the offer letter and/or earlier communications formed part of the contractual employment terms. (emphasis added)

3. At paragraph 12 the claimant pleaded his alleged contractual entitlement.

4. A Case Management Hearing was held before E J Cowen on the 27 June 2025. There was clearly discussion as to what terms were relied upon and an order made as follows:

‘5. By 7 July 2025 the Claimant shall indicate to the Tribunal and the Respondent whether he asserts in relation to paragraph 12 of the ET1 that the terms were express and/or implied and must make any application which he considers appropriate’.

5. By letter of the 7 July 2025 the claimant’s solicitors stated that the claimant is seeking to rely upon ‘contractual entitlements that arise from both express and implied terms. This clarification is intended to more fully particularise the claim for constructive dismissal which has already been pleaded by the Claimant, not introduce any new head of claim.’ They provided an updated Grounds of Complaint and in which they had amended paragraph 12 to read:

‘As part of the express and implied terms agreed between the parties the Claimant has a contractual entitlement to the following:’

6. They went on to state however that insofar as the tribunal considered that the claimant did seek to introduce a new claim and/or that the claim had not been pleaded they sought leave to amend.

7. In response to objections filed by the respondent the claimant’s solicitor wrote again on the 5 August stating that the implied terms came from the ‘earlier communications’ pleaded at paragraph 11 of the Grounds of Claim.

8. In view of the above correspondence including the respondent’s position that leave to amend was required and their objection to an amendment [NAME] directed that a hearing be listed to consider the matter. This was originally listed for the 18 November 2025 but had to be postponed due to lack of judicial resources and was relisted for 23 January 2026.

9. At the June Case Management Hearing the full merits hearing was listed for the 3 – 6 February 2026 and directions made for preparation for that Hearing. These included:

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

3 of 7

Disclosure of documents – 5 September 2025

File of documents – 17 November 2025

Witness statements – 15 December 2025

Pre trial checklists - 18 December 2025

10. At this hearing the tribunal had 14 pages of written submissions on behalf of the respondent and heard oral arguments from both counsel. On the morning of the hearing (just as it was about to start) further documents were filed by the claimant’s solicitors in addition to a bundle for the hearing already provided (91 pages). The additional 80 pages included board meeting minutes, emails and [NAME] messages from 2021 to the time of the claimant’s resignation. Although there was a break for the tribunal to see what this bundle contained evidence was not being heard at this hearing and no findings are made on any of those documents.

Submissions for the claimant

11. It was submitted that what was said to have been agreed between the parties in paragraph 12 of the Grounds of Complaint had always been the matters set out in paragraphs 9 – 11 of those Grounds. At this hearing Counsel for the claimant confirmed that those are the [NAME] messages said to have taken place on the 12 March 2021 and referred to in paragraph 9 of Grounds of Complaint. The claimant argues that the tribunal should find terms to be implied into the written agreement between the parties from the earlier communications between the parties prior to the signing of it. Paragraph 11 had always pleaded that the ‘offer letter and/or earlier communications formed part of the contractual terms’ and those matters were always part of the claimant’s case. This was not an application to amend but clarification of the claim as had been requested. The application to amend was in the alternative in case the tribunal considered it was required.

Submissions for the respondent

12. These were contained in the written submissions but also added to orally.

13. Although the claimant had said at this hearing that there were no civil proceedings concern was expressed at the detail in the Grounds of Complaint at paragraphs 47 – 50 in which the claimant listed the reservation of other claims. Reference was made to the claimant’s ‘litigation strategy’ and that he may be seeking to have findings made by the Employment Tribunal that he can then rely on elsewhere.

14. There is an ‘entire agreement’ clause in the claimant’s service agreement which would seem to defeat any argument that other terms could be implied into it as now seems to be being suggested.

15. The respondent also submitted that the particulars provided where wholly inadequate and unarticulated.

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

4 of 7

The tribunal’s conclusions

16. With the clarification provided at this hearing that the claimant relies solely on the [NAME] messages already pleaded at paragraph 9 of the Grounds of Complaint the tribunal is satisfied that what was provided by the claimant was further information and that leave to amend was not required. The [NAME] messages had already been pleaded.

17. In case it is considered leave to amend was required the claimant had made an application. The respondent takes issue with this both orally and in written submissions stating that this clearly meant that the claimant recognised that he did in fact need to make such an application. The tribunal does not accept that. Solicitors routinely provide further information but, in the alternative, make an application to amend in case the tribunal considers it to be necessary.

18. If such an application had been necessary, it would have been granted. It is now known that the only ‘earlier communications’ relied upon are the [NAME] messages of 12 March 2021. There is no disadvantage to the respondent as those messages had always been part of the factual background.

19. It is argued that the Service Agreement signed by the parties contained an ‘entire contract’ clause and that the argument that there should be implied other terms into it is bound to fail. Whilst appreciating the tribunal can consider merits on such an application it is only one of the factors. No view is expressed on merits by this tribunal. Those messages were always going to be part of the evidence. The claimant also relies on numerous other matters as entitling him to resign.

20. The fact that it is now less than 2 weeks before the listed final hearing is no fault of the claimant who responded to [APPELLANT] order within the time required. Delays in the tribunal system have led to this hearing taking place at the time it has.

21. This is not adding a new claim. The claim was and remains one of constructive unfair dismissal.

22. Added to the list of issues as a new paragraph 2.3A will be:

‘2.3A Could any terms be implied into the claimant’s contract of employment by virtue of the [NAME] messages of 12 March 2021’

Disclosure

23. The tribunal decision having been given the respondent raised an issue about disclosure. They believe and pleaded that the claimant resigned to set up a [NAME]. They sought further disclosure in October 2025. On 4 November 2025 the claimant’s solicitor stated he would obtain further instructions and the respondent states it has still not received the disclosure sought.

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

5 of 7

24. In the claimant’s schedule of loss he referred to his new business, IONI and that he had two potential production quotes with one client [RESPONDENT]. The respondent states that is one of its clients and therefore there is a potential breach of post termination covenants.

25. There was a break for the email exchanges between the solicitors about disclosure to be emailed to the tribunal. These were from 15 October to 4 November 2025.

26. In the 15 October email the claimant’s solicitor provided information about the setting up of IONI. Further enquiries were raised by the respondent in their email of the 28 October and responses provided on 4 November 2025. In relation to IONI the claimant’s solicitor confirmed there was nothing further to disclose relevant to the conception and/or establishment of that company. In relation to quotes from [NAME] the claimant’s solicitor was ‘taking instructions and will revert this week’.

27. The claimant’s counsel stated to this hearing that the 2 pages of those quotes could now be provided later on the day of this hearing. They had not been considered relevant so had not been provided sooner.

28. The respondent argued it was being greatly prejudiced by not being able to put to the claimant that he had been trying to set up a [NAME]. Whilst conscious of the backlog in the tribunal system if the full merits hearing was postponed there was culpability on the part of the claimant.

29. In discussing a timetable to ensure that the full merits hearing could go ahead the respondent’s position was that the instructing solicitor ‘had other matters to deal with’ and that he is unsure of Mr [COUNSEL] the instructing client’s availability. Counsel for the claimant suggested various dates for the finalisation of the bundle and exchange of witness statements.

Decision on postponement

30. The judge explained from the outset of this hearing what would already have been known to the instructing solicitors that cases are now being listed for 2028 and 2029 in this region. The ‘earlier communications’ relied on in this case are 2021. It is not in either parties’ interest for there to be delay in having this case heard.

31. The orders made by [NAME] for trial preparation have never been varied. In the pre-trial checklists the respondent stated that a draft trial bundle had been prepared and circulated but witness statements had not been exchanged. The claimant’s solicitor had proposed that the final hearing bundle be agreed by 6 January 2026 but that appears not to have happened. They proposed witness statements to be exchanged on 20 January but that did not happen either.

32. The parties could have complied with directions pending this application. It is not unusual for further documents to be disclosed if arising out of the amendment had one been necessary or for there to be a short supplemental witness statement served to deal with matters arising.

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

6 of 7

33. The tribunal was not provided with any further information as to the ‘other matters’ the respondent’s solicitor has to deal with. The parties have known about this trial date since the June Case Management hearing. It has never been postponed. It seems a draft bundle has been agreed. Witness statements should have been prepared and must now be finalised and exchanged.

34. The full merits hearing remains as listed as it is only in accordance with the overriding objective for it to proceed. The following orders are made:

ORDERS

1. The claimant discloses to the respondent by 4pm on 23 January 2026 the [NAME] quotes.

2. The bundle to be finalised by Tuesday 27 January 2026

3. Witness statements to be exchanged by Thursday 29 January 2026.

Other Matters

(1) The attention of the parties is drawn to the Presidential Guidance on ‘General Case Management’, which can be found at: www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice- directions/

(2) The parties are reminded of rule 92: “Where a party sends a communication to the Tribunal (except an application under rule 32) it shall send a copy to all other parties, and state that it has done so (by use of “cc” or otherwise) …” If, when writing to the Tribunal, the parties do not comply with this rule, the Tribunal may decide not to consider what they have written.

(3) The parties are also reminded of their obligation under rule 2 to assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in particular to co-operate generally with other parties and with the Tribunal.

(4) If the Tribunal determines that the Respondent has breached any of the Claimant’s rights to which the claim relates, it may decide whether there were any aggravating features to the breach and, if so, whether to impose a financial penalty and in what sum, in accordance with section 12A Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

(5) The above orders were made and explained to the parties at the Preliminary Hearing. All orders must be complied with even if this written record of the hearing is received after the date for compliance has passed.

Case Number: 3305255/2024.

7 of 7

(6) Anyone affected by any of these orders may apply for it to be varied, suspended or set aside. Any further applications should be made on receipt of these orders or as soon as possible.

(7) The parties may by agreement vary the dates specified in any order by up to 14 days without the Tribunal’s permission except that no variation may be agreed where that might affect the Hearing date. The Tribunal must be told about any agreed variation before it comes into effect.

(8) Public access to Employment Tribunal decisions All Judgments and Reasons for the Judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the Claimant(s) and Respondent(s) in a case.

(9) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a Tribunal Order for the disclosure of documents commits a criminal offence and is liable, if convicted in the Magistrates Court, to a fine of up to £1,000.00.

(10) Under rule 6, if any of the above orders is not complied with, the Tribunal may take such action as it considers just which may include: (a) waiving or varying the requirement; (b) striking out the claim or the response, in whole or in part, in accordance with rule 37; (c) barring or restricting a party’s participation in the proceedings; and / or (d) awarding costs in accordance with rule 74-84.

Approved by:

Employment Judge Laidler Date: 27 January 2026 Sent to the parties on: 27 January 2026

For the Tribunal:

Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal Hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge is likely to be payable in most but not all circumstances. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral Judgment or Reasons given at the Hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a Judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/