Claimant v Ability Hotels (Edinburgh) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant alleged he was offered and accepted a 16-hour contract but relied on an email offering a 'casual contract'. The contemporaneous documentation did not support the claimant's argument that there was a contract for 16 hours per week minimum employment. The tribunal found the claimant's interpretation of the offer email unsupportable, and even taking his case at its highest, the evidence could not establish the contract he alleged.
Facts
The claimant alleged he was offered a 16-hour employment contract by the respondent hotel company. He claimed to have accepted this offer and resigned from his existing job in reliance on it. The respondent subsequently sent him a zero-hours casual contract. The claimant relied on an email exchange from 1-2 April 2025 as constituting offer and acceptance. The respondent's email offered him 'casual contract' (without the article 'a'). The claimant never commenced employment with the respondent.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospect of success. Even taking the claimant's case at its highest and relying on the undisputed contemporaneous email exchange he cited, the offer was clearly for a 'casual contract', not a guaranteed 16-hour per week employment contract. The claimant's interpretation of the email heading and the absence of the article 'a' was unsupportable, and the contemporaneous documentation could not establish the contract the claimant alleged.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants relying on breach of contract claims must identify clear contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting the specific contractual terms they allege; subjective interpretation of ambiguous language will not suffice where the natural meaning of the words contradicts their case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001495/2025
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- GSA Position
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No