Claimant v The Hurlingham Club

The Claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal found several breaks in service, including a period from September 2020 to April 2021, a six-week absence in summer 2021, and importantly, a termination and re-engagement in November/December 2021 due to immigration status expiring. At best, continuous service ran from April 2021 to November 2022 (under two years); at worst from December 2021 to November 2022 (less than one year). The claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The tribunal found that the Claimant was an employee during each assignment and that there was an express or implied term prohibiting physical violence in the workplace. The Claimant deliberately and seriously breached this term by pushing and striking Mr Ivanov in the face during an altercation on 1 October 2022. This constituted gross misconduct amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling the Respondent to terminate without notice. Issues of fairness and reasonableness are irrelevant in wrongful dismissal claims; the legal test for summary dismissal was satisfied. No notice pay was therefore due.

The tribunal found no evidence from which race discrimination could be inferred. While there was less favourable treatment compared to Mr Ivanov (a white employee), the circumstances were materially different: witnesses identified the Claimant as the aggressor who struck Ivanov, whereas Ivanov was the victim. Critically, during cross-examination the Claimant conceded that the Respondent's decision was because of his behaviour, not his race. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the Claimant's violent conduct proven by independent witness statements, and that the decision-makers' minds were in no way consciously or subconsciously influenced by the fact that the Claimant was black. The burden of proof never shifted to the Respondent, and even if it had, the Respondent discharged it.