Claimant v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant applied orally to amend her claim to add a complaint of direct age discrimination in relation to a flexible retirement request. The application was refused. The remainder of the age discrimination complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
This preliminary hearing dealt with respondent's applications for strike out or deposit orders. The tribunal refused both applications, finding that the claim (particularly the argument that the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence by reneging on an expectation that the claimant would be appointed to a new Strategic Business Partner role) had reasonable prospects of success. The claim will proceed to a final hearing.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a People Management Business Partner. During a 2024 reorganisation, she applied for a promotion to a Strategic Business Partner role. Despite an expectation communicated by the respondent that the three available roles would be filled from the four internal applicants, the claimant was assessed as 'not appointable' after interview. The roles were left unfilled. She resigned with immediate effect. She also had an outstanding flexible retirement request from July 2023 which had been put on hold.
Decision
This was a preliminary hearing dealing with procedural applications. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend to add a direct age discrimination claim relating to flexible retirement. The remainder of the age discrimination complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out or make a deposit order in respect of the unfair constructive dismissal claim, finding it had reasonable prospects of success, particularly the argument that the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence.
Practical note
A constructive dismissal claim based on breach of an expectation created by management during a reorganisation process can have reasonable prospects of success even where the claimant was applying for a promotion, not defending an existing role.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020737/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- People Management Business Partner
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No