Quote martinwildbull="martinwildbull"FA can you please help my understanding of this by explaining why the High Court claim is for unfair dismissal, rather than breach of contract? Or have the media ( oh surely they never do that...) misrepresented FC's case? If there was a contract, then wouldnt the claim be for that, as that is the simplest easiest thing to demonstrate to a judge? - even a verbal one, as you point out. But it is unfair dismissal, which I thought was an issue for Employment Tribunals?'"
It isn't for
unfair dismissal, which is a statutory breach. It's for
wrongful dismissal, which is a breach of contract.
Wrongful dismissal claims can be heard in a Tribunal, but also in the County Court or High Court, depending on the amount being claimed. Franny's solicitors reportedly said his case is heading for the High Court, which means it is over £25K.
To be "wrongful", the employee must prove that the employer acted in breach of their contractual obligations in ending the employment, and that as a result the employee has suffered a loss.
In unfair dismissal cases the tribunal can award compensation, but that is not the case for wrongful dismissal, which is a simple question of what the employee lost. That would be whatever he was due under his contract. Including wages, perks, bonuses, pension contributions etc. But no compo.
I haven't checked the dates, but frommemory his contract was due to expire afer 3 years in Sept 2015. If that is so, then my fingers and toes suggest he was sacked less than 2 years from start of employment and so wouldn't be eligible for unfair dismissal anyway, but there's no qualifying period for wrongful dismissal.