Claimant v Opieka Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's strike-out application. The tribunal refused to strike out the unfair dismissal claim, finding that evidence would need to be heard to determine whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, particularly as the claimant had been suspended for some time and argued he could have been redeployed or suspension continued.
Facts
The claimant was summarily dismissed following criminal bail conditions. The respondent dismissed him for failure to disclose bail conditions, conduct potentially bringing the company into disrepute, and breach of safeguarding policies. The claimant worked for a company providing services to vulnerable adults. There was a dispute about whether the complainant in the criminal case was in accommodation where the respondent provided services, and about loss of work to the respondent. The claimant argued he could have been redeployed or suspension continued.
Decision
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the unfair dismissal claim and refused the deposit order application. The judge concluded it was necessary to hear evidence to determine the case and was not satisfied that the claim had no or little reasonable prospect of success, particularly given the claimant had been suspended for some time and raised arguments about redeployment or continued suspension.
Practical note
Strike-out applications in unfair dismissal cases will be refused where factual disputes exist about the reasonableness of the employer's decision-making process, particularly regarding alternatives to dismissal such as redeployment or continued suspension.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6022429/2024
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Opieka Ltd
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No