Centre manager's unfair dismissal claim withdrawn after preliminary hearings
A centre manager who brought unfair dismissal claims against her employer and the shopping centre landlords saw her case dismissed after she withdrew it at a preliminary hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #preliminary-hearing
- #strike-out
- #withdrawal
- #settlement-discussions
- #without-prejudice
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the first respondent from 20 October 2015 to 8 August 2018 as Centre Manager.
- The second to fifth respondents were landlords of the shopping centre and not the claimant's employer.
- The claimant's claims against the second to fifth respondents were struck out for disclosing no cause of action.
- Settlement discussions near the end of employment were inadmissible under section 111A ERA 1996.
- The claimant withdrew her remaining claims against the first respondent at a preliminary hearing in September 2022.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Centre Manager at The Priory Shopping Centre, Dartford, Kent.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed from her employment.
-
Preliminary hearing (strike-out)
Employment Judge Truscott QC struck out claims against second to fifth respondents and ordered redaction of settlement references.
-
Preliminary hearing (withdrawal)
Hearing at Ashford by CVP before Employment Judge Self and members.
-
Judgment on withdrawal
Claimant's remaining claims for unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, and health and safety detriment were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the landlords of the shopping centre could be proper respondents to an unfair dismissal claim and whether settlement discussions could be referred to in the claim.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claims against the second to fifth respondents (the landlords) because they were not the claimant's employer and the claims disclosed no cause of action.
The tribunal also ordered that references to settlement discussions be redacted from the claim, as they were inadmissible under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
At a later preliminary hearing, the claimant withdrew her remaining claims against the first respondent (Workman Facilities Management Limited), and those claims were dismissed. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Make sure you name the correct employer as respondent – landlords or other third parties are unlikely to be liable for unfair dismissal.
- Settlement discussions are generally inadmissible in unfair dismissal claims under section 111A ERA 1996, so avoid referring to them in your claim form.
- If you bring claims against multiple respondents, the tribunal may strike out those that have no legal basis early on.
- Withdrawing a claim at a preliminary hearing means you lose the chance to pursue it further, so consider legal advice before doing so.
This case shows how procedural issues can derail an unfair dismissal claim before it reaches a full hearing. The claimant, a centre manager, brought claims not only against her employer but also against the landlords of the shopping centre where she worked. The tribunal quickly struck out the claims against the landlords because they were not her employer – a fundamental point that must be correct from the start.
The importance of naming the right respondent
Employment claims can only be brought against the actual employer. The landlords, despite being involved in the shopping centre, had no employment relationship with the claimant. The tribunal applied the legal test for identifying the true employer and found no basis for the claims against them. This highlights the need to check who your employer is legally – it may not be the company you deal with day-to-day.
Settlement discussions and withdrawal
The tribunal also addressed the issue of settlement discussions. The claimant had referred to these in her claim, but the tribunal ordered them redacted because they were inadmissible under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This rule protects pre-termination negotiations from being used as evidence in unfair dismissal claims, unless there is improper behaviour.
At a later hearing, the claimant withdrew her remaining claims against the employer. The reasons for withdrawal are not given, but it meant the case ended without any finding on the merits. For anyone considering a similar claim, this case is a reminder that getting the legal basics right – such as who to sue and what evidence to include – is crucial to avoid early defeat.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Discrimination claims struck out after failure to provide clear particulars
A former employee's race and religion discrimination claims were struck out after she failed to provide a properly constructed amendment despite a tribunal order. Her solicitor's last-minute postponement request was refused.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee with less than two years' service had her unfair dismissal complaint struck out by the tribunal. Other discrimination claims remain pending.
Asbestos removal workers' TUPE claims struck out: no transfer found
A group of former asbestos removal workers had their claims against three companies struck out after the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of their employment.