Claimant v Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant argued he was unfairly dismissed as suitable alternative employment was available and he was not put forward for a particular role. The respondent sought strike out arguing no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal determined this could only be decided at full hearing with evidence on the role, claimant's skills, and actions taken to find alternative employment.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed by way of redundancy on 28 May 2024. He claims that suitable alternative employment was available and he was not put forward for a particular role, making the redundancy unfair. The respondent sought to strike out the claim at a preliminary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospects of success and that the role was not suitable alternative employment.
Decision
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim and refused the application for a deposit order. The judge determined that the issues regarding whether suitable alternative employment existed and whether the redundancy was fair could only be properly decided at a full hearing with evidence from both parties on the role, the claimant's skills, and actions taken to find alternative employment.
Practical note
Strike out applications in redundancy cases turning on disputed factual issues about suitable alternative employment are unlikely to succeed without a full merits hearing.
Case details
- Case number
- 6014791/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No