Employment Tribunal Decision: Unfair Dismissal and Contract Breach
📌 In brief
An Employment Tribunal ruled on a case involving unfair dismissal and breach of contract. Despite the claimant's unreasonable behavior, the claims were not struck out. Damages were awarded to the claimant for breach of contract.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must pay damages if it breaches a contract by failing to provide proper notice of termination.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the criteria for determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair. It requires the employer to demonstrate the reason for the dismissal and prove that the reason falls within certain categories, including the employee's capability, qualifications, conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction imposed by law.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's conduct was found unreasonable but not grounds for striking out the claims; costs were awarded to the respondent.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge dismissed the respondent's application to strike out claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract, finding that while the claimant's conduct was unreasonable, it did not warrant striking out. The judge awarded damages for breach of contract.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
3305434 2024
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
Watford (by CVP)
On:
28/5/2025 Before:
Employment Judge [NAME] [APPELLANT] Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent’s application to strike out the claims is dismissed. 2. The Claimant must pay the Respondent’s costs of the application to strike out, assessed at £2000, not to be enforced except but way of set-off against any compensation/damages which the Claimant may be awarded in these proceedings.
REASONS 1. The Claimant, after presenting his claim on 31/5/24, and during June 24, sent a series of abusive and vindictive emails about the Respondent, its director Mr [RESPONDENT] and its employee Mr [RESPONDENT],- to the Respondent, its employees, clients and other stakeholders, with the intention of causing maximum damage to the Respondent’s business and its reputation. This included the false suggestion that the Respondent was being wound up. The purpose of these emails was to try to blackmail or extort from the Respondent payment of the money (about £15000) which the Claimant thought was owing to him. Also on 16/6/24 (a Sunday and non-work day) the Claimant went round to Mr [APPELLANT] home (which however is also used as an office) at 9.30am in morning, where an altercation occurred between the two of them. Also on 21/6/24 (a Friday work day,) at 8.40am, the Claimant went round to the Respondent’s office premises at [ADDRESS] and made demands for money.
2. The Claimant accepts that his conduct (and in particular his sending of the vexatious emails) in June 24 was wrong and unreasonable. It related closely to the subject matter of the proceedings and I find it was scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious conduct of the proceedings themselves as contemplated by Rule 38(1)b) of the 2024 ET [APPELLANT]
3. However, in June 2024 the Claimant was suffering from ill-health and was upset about his dismissal and worried about the money he felt was due to him. This does not excuse his conduct but it does explain and mitigate it to some extent. Furthermore, there has been no continuation or repeat of the unreasonable behaviour since June 2024 - since then the Claimant has dealt reasonably with the Respondent’s solicitor Mr [COUNSEL] and has not contacted the Respondent directly. I think it is likely that he will continue to do so until the proceedings are concluded 4. I have received no evidence or witness statement from Mr [RESPONDENT] or any other potential
3305434 2024
2 Respondent’s witness about any effect of the unreasonable conduct on them - for example as to whether or not they feel they can still give evidence at the FMH. It is not shown that a fair trial is no longer possible.
5.
In all the circumstances I regard making a costs order and issuing a direction to the Claimant (to refrain from direct contact with the Respondent etc) - see separate CMO - as a sufficient response, and conclude that striking out would be disproportionate.
6. Mr [NAME] told me that the costs of the application to strike out/obtain some other protection for the Respondent on the grounds of Claimants unreasonable conduct has cost the Respondent about £2000 plus Vat in additional legal costs. The Respondent is Vat registered so it can recover its VAT elsewhere. The Claimant is currently unemployed and out of funds but conceded that he had been unreasonable and did not oppose the costs order in the terms which I have made it.
[APPELLANT] 28/05/2025 For the Tribunals: Date sent to parties: 26/06/2025
Case Number: 3305434/24
1 of 1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] Reading; by CVP
On: 19 February 2026
Before: Employment Judge Hindmarch
Appearances For the claimant: [redacted] For the respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded.
2. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant £11,292.31 as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the Claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Hindmarch
Approved on: 25 February 2026
Sent to the parties on:
26 April 2026
For the Tribunal Office:
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal: Reduced Compensation Awarded Due to Higher Earnings
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Decision: Disability Discrimination and Reasonable Adju…
- Employment Tribunal Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages, Not Pension Failures
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Age Discrimination Claim, Rejects Unfair Dismiss…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Age Discrimination and Disability Adjustments
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim, But Compensation Reduced
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Disability Discrimination and Pay Statements
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim Against an Online Retaile…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant wins case over unauthorised wage cuts and unpaid holiday
- Employment Tribunal Successful Claimant Awarded Costs by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Successfully Proves Unfair Dismissal but Sees Reduced Awards
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Unfairly Dismissed Employee
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- An employer is required to cover reasonable legal costs when a claimant successfully pursues an employment tribunal case.| An employer must not dismiss an employee without a fair reason and proper procedure.| An employer must comply with the Working Time Regulations 1998 when calculating statutory annual leave payments.| An employer must make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees to avoid discriminatory constructive dismissal.| An employer must provide written itemised pay statements and cannot treat an employee unfavourably due to their disability or request unnecessary sick notes.| An employer must not unfairly dismiss an employee without a fair reason under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- An employer may dismiss an employee for misconduct, but the compensation is reduced if the employee contributed to their own dismissal.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the respondent must pay damages for breach of contract and unfair dismissal.
Who was involved?
A worker (the claimant) and their employer (the respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The court found that while the claimant's conduct was unreasonable, it did not warrant striking out the claims. The breach of contract claim was well-founded.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was cited for breach of contract.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that the employer breached the contract by failing to provide proper notice of termination was key.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimant, awarding damages for breach of contract.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone facing unfair dismissal and breach of contract may be entitled to compensation if their employer fails to provide proper notice.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The claimant's emails and the respondent's legal costs were relevant.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.