Should an unfair dismissal claim fail because the unrepresented claimant didn't correctly identify her case as one of constructive dismissal?
No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Aynge v Trickett.
The Claimant worked in a pub until she fell out with the licensee, on 15 and 16 October 2016. Her ET1 said she had been dismissed on 15 October, and said nothing about constructive dismissal.
The tribunal held that the Claimant had conceded in evidence that she had not been dismissed on 15 October. He held that since she had not alleged a constructive dismissal, or any dismissal on 16 October, her claim could not succeed on the basis on which it was pleaded, and must be dismissed.
The EAT doubted that there had been such a concession, and held that the Claimant had sufficiently raised in her ET1 the essence of her case, which was that she had been unfairly dismissed as a consequence of the events of 15 and 16 October. Even if she had not, the Employment Judge should not have dismissed the claim without at least considering whether to allow an amendment to raise those points expressly.
Thanks to Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple Chambers for preparing this case summary.
Comments