Claimant v Cavalry Claims Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for some other substantial reason (office relocation from Norwich to Colchester and requirement to be office-based). This was a business decision within the range of reasonable responses. The respondent needed larger office space, the Norwich lease was ending, and Colchester offered better value and recruitment opportunities. The decision to require office-based working for claims handlers was reasonable given the business needs and reliance on one main client.
Facts
Ben Russell was employed as a Senior Claims Handler by Cavalry Claims Services Limited from January 2022 to June 2024. In May 2024, he was informed the Norwich office would close and operations would relocate to Colchester. Russell declined to relocate due to family circumstances including his partner's work schedule, childcare arrangements, and loss of overtime earnings due to commuting time. He requested home working, which the respondent refused, requiring all claims handlers to be office-based. After consultation meetings, the respondent treated his refusal to relocate as a resignation and terminated his employment with notice.
Decision
The tribunal found Russell was dismissed (not resigned) but that the dismissal was fair for some other substantial reason. The business decision to relocate to Colchester was reasonable given the need for larger premises, expiring Norwich lease, better value, and improved recruitment opportunities. The requirement for office-based working for claims handlers was within the range of reasonable responses given business needs and reliance on one main client. Despite Russell's difficult family circumstances, the respondent's decision was not unreasonable.
Practical note
An employer can fairly dismiss an employee who refuses to relocate when the relocation is driven by genuine business needs, even where the employee has contractual home-working rights and genuine personal reasons for refusing, provided the new location is reasonably commutable and the decision falls within the range of reasonable responses.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3308751/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Claims Handler
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No