Claimant v Butlins Skyline Ltd

The claimant ticked the box for age discrimination but provided no factual allegations of age discrimination in the claim form. He was directed to make an amendment application by 25 May 2025 to include allegations of being called 'dad' and 'grandad' by colleagues and comments about his views being from 'another century', but failed to do so. As there are no age discrimination allegations before the tribunal, the claim was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant's detriment claim relating to whistleblowing about drug use and drug dealing on site was not subject to strike out or deposit order at this preliminary hearing. It will proceed to final hearing.

The tribunal found the claim has little reasonable prospect of success, as the respondent showed the dismissal followed a final written warning for sexist remarks and misconduct, and two further incidents (a confrontation requiring security and guest complaints) which were not invented by HR. The claimant's theory that HR orchestrated his dismissal in retaliation for whistleblowing was unsupported by evidence. A deposit order was imposed as the claim has little reasonable prospect, though not none.

The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim (unpaid notice pay) was not struck out and the respondent withdrew its application for strike out/deposit order. The claim will proceed to final hearing.

The claim was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success for two reasons: the claimant was not dismissed for redundancy, and he had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to a redundancy payment in any event.

The claimant argued his contract was unilaterally varied from guaranteed 40 hours to zero hours, causing unlawful deductions. However, both the original and subsequent contracts contained identical Clause 6 provisions stating he could be scheduled to work less than his contract hours of 40 per week and would be paid for actual hours worked. The tribunal found there was never a guaranteed 40-hour week, so being paid for fewer hours worked was contractual and not unlawful.