Mr K Iwuanyanwu v Quality Protects Children Ltd: 6008599/2024
REASONS
Issues to be determined
[1]At the outset it was confirmed that the claim was one of breach of contract only. The issue was whether there was a binding contract of employment between the parties. It was accepted that the respondent had made an offer of a contract of employment conditional upon a number of matters including the provision of two credible supporting references. The issue was whether: 1.1. the claimant had provided two credible supporting references; 1.2. The withdrawal of the offer by the respondent was a breach of contract entitling the claimant to compensation.[2]The claimant confirmed that he did not pursue a claim of unfair dismissal and consented to the dismissal of that claim upon withdrawal. Orders[3]A number of orders were made for the conduct and good management of the proceedings during the course of the Hearing. In making the orders the tribunal considered the overriding objective and the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Orders included the following.[4]The claimant sought to rely on additional documents not contained in the bundle, including email exchanges between himself and the respondent’s representative concerning exchange of witness statements. The respondent raised no objection and copies were provided to the tribunal. Application to strike out the response[5]At the outset of the hearing the claimant pursued this application, which had been notified to the tribunal and the respondent in advance of the hearing.[6]The claimant provided a written application and made a number of oral submissions which the tribunal has considered with care. In essence it was asserted that: 6.1. The respondent failed to comply with the order for exchange of witness statements. An order was made by the tribunal that witness statements be exchanged by 25 November 2024. The claimant provided his witness statement on 24 November 2024. The respondent failed to do so. On the application of the respondent EJ Dunlop extended the time for the exchange of witness statements to 22 April 2025. The respondent provided its witness statement on 23 April 2025. This gave the claimant under 4 weeks to prepare for the hearing; 6.2. the witness statement of Ms Melia had so many lies in it was very distressing to the claimant; 6.3. The respondent’s representative sent aggressive and distressing emails to the claimant at late hours, causing the claimant distress and personal injury; 6.4. the conduct of the respondent has adversely affected the claimant’s health and he wishes to seek compensation for injury to feelings and aggravated damages.[7]The respondent opposed the application and made a number of submissions which the tribunal has considered with care. In essence it was asserted that: 7.1. The claimant provided his witness statement in November 2024 but the preparation and exchange of witness statements at that stage was inappropriate as disclosure of documents had not yet been completed; 7.2. The claimant's witness statement was deleted from the representative’s system to prevent any potential unfairness; 7.3. The respondent’s representative tried to agree a variation of the date for exchange of witness statements with the claimant bearing in mind that the final hearing was not set until June 2025 and no prejudice could be caused by delaying the exchange of witness statements; 7.4. the respondent made a formal application for an extension of time for exchange of witness statements. Time was extended by the tribunal to 22 April 2025. The respondent contacted both tribunal and the claimant to explain that their witness statements would be delayed by one day. The witness statements of the respondents were provided to the claimants on the 23 April 2025. This was only one day late. The claimant did not reply to the correspondence about this matter but simply made his application to strike out; 7.5. The claimant does not agree with the evidence of the respondent but this will be determined by the tribunal; 7.6. the claimant delayed in providing disclosure of documents and submitting his schedule of loss. The respondent raised no issue about this because they still had sufficient time to prepare for the final hearing; 7.7. the claimant had the respondent’s witness statements for just under six weeks prior to the final hearing. He has had sufficient time to prepare. All the relevant evidence related to documents which were contained within the agreed bundle; 7.8. the claimant did not provide his final witness statement until the 22 May 2025. Again, the respondent did not take issue with this because it had time to prepare for the final hearing. 7.9. It is denied that aggressive emails were sent to the claimant. The respondent’s representative expressed his disappointment in the way in which the claimant was conducting the proceedings. The claimant was advised that his behaviour was obstructive and that he displayed ignorant behaviour by ignoring the respondent’s representative and only responding when the tribunal made an order; 7.10. A fair hearing can still take place. It is not in the interests of justice to strike out the response. The claimant is ready to go ahead today. He has not made an application for an adjournment to allow him more time.[8]The tribunal has considered all the circumstances including the following: 8.1. The claim was presented to the tribunal on the 15 August 2024. The claim was set down for hearing and orders made by the tribunal on 2 September 2024, including an order that witness statements be exchanged by 25 November 2024; 8.2. By email dated 17 January 2025 the claimant advised the tribunal that the respondent had failed to comply with the orders of the tribunal. 8.3. By letter dated 3 March 2025 the tribunal advised the respondent: On the Tribunal’s own initiative and having considered any representations made by the parties, in accordance with Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Employment Judge Barker is considering striking out the response because:• you have not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 2 September 2024.• it has not been actively pursued. 8.4. By email dated 24 March 2025 the respondent indicated to the tribunal: It is denied that there has been non-compliance with the Tribunal’s orders and the response is not actively pursued. The parties have had various back and forth exchanges through January and February 2025 regarding disclosure. In fact, the Claimant did not provide all his disclosable documents until 10 February 2025. We believe the only outstanding case management order is the exchange of witness statements. We request that the date for exchange of statements be varied to 21 April 2025. 8.5. The claimant provided his original and supplementary witness statements to the respondent and the tribunal by email on 26 March 2025. On 27 March 2025 he made an application to strike out the response and an application for costs. 8.6. By letter dated 10 April 2025 the tribunal advised the parties: 1. The deadline for exchange of witness statements is extended to 22 April 2025 (21 April being a bank holiday). Whilst the Judge appreciates the claimant will find this frustrating, there remains plenty of time for the parties to prepare for the final hearing. The draconian step of striking out the response is not justified. 2. The claimant’s application to strike out the respondent’s response will be heard (if it is pursued) at the start of the final hearing. 3. Any application the claimant wishes to make for a costs order can also be heard at the final hearing. The Judge will decide whether to deal with this as a preliminary issue, or at the conclusion of the case. 4. The claimant’s ‘additional heads of loss’ are noted. Not all of these are heads of loss which are available in an unfair dismissal claim. This can again be discussed at the final hearing. 8.7. There was an exchange of emails between the claimant and the respondent’s representative about the exchange of witness statements. The respondent’s representative advised the claimant that he had not received a copy of the claimant’s witness statement, The correspondence included the following emails from the respondent’s representative: 8.7.1. By email dated 23 April 2025: You have failed to respond properly or at all to my emails of 22 and 23 April 2025 enquiring when you will be in a position to exchange statements. To save further meritless applications and communications being sent to the ET, find attached the Respondent's witness statements. I look forward to receiving your statement by immediately by return. Should your statement not be received within a reasonable timeframe following this email, I shall take matters up with the ET. 8.7.2. By email dated 24 April 2025: I request that you send a copy of your witness statement as a matter of urgency. If it is not received by 08:00am on 25 April 2025, I will bring your obstructive conduct to the attention of the ET and invite it to draw adverse inferences. 8.7.3. By email dated 29 April 2025 sent at 21.07pm : It is extremely disappointing that we are yet to receive your witness statement as requested on numerous occasions. Your conduct is wholly unreasonable, obstructive, and ignorant. Provide a copy of your statement as a matter of urgency 8.8. There was correspondence with the tribunal indicating that the respondent had asked the claimant for a copy of his witness statement because they had not received it and the claimant refused to provide a further copy. The claimant made further allegations of failure to comply with the orders of the tribunal and made a further application for strike out of the response. The tribunal by letter dated 22 May 2025 advised the parties: The claimant's application to strike out the response will be considered at the start of the hearing listed on 2 June (if it is pursued and if the Employment Judge conducting the hearing considers it appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective to do so). If the claimant has not already done so, he must re-send a copy of his witness statement to the respondent's representative as soon as he is reasonably able to. 8.9. The claimant provided a further copy of his original witness statement and supplementary witness statement to the respondent on 22 May 2025. Determination of the application to strike out[9]The main complaint is that the respondent did not provide witness statements until 23 April 2025. Time had been extended for the exchange of witness statements until 22 April 2025. The respondent was therefore one day late in supplying the witness statements. The claimant feels he has been disadvantaged by the fact that he provided his own witness statement to the respondent in November 2024. However, it is not clear what that disadvantage is. No disadvantage has been identified. The claimant does not challenge the respondent’s assertion that the original witness statement provided in November 2024 was removed from the records, in other words, was not considered at that stage. The claimant did send a witness statement to the tribunal and the respondent by email on 26 March 2025. However, it is clear that the respondent’s representative could not trace that witness statement, corresponded with the claimant about mutual exchange of witness statements, provided the respondent’s witness statements on 23 April 2025 and made repeated requests for a copy of the claimant’s witness statement. The claimant did provide a copy of his original witness statement and what he describes as his supplementary witness statement to the respondent on 22 May 2025.[10]The claimant advises that he has been ill. It is not clear if that is the reason he was unable to prepare for the cross examination of the respondent’s witnesses. No satisfactory medical evidence has been provided to indicate that the claimant was unable to conduct his affairs, was unable to take part in the preparation for the hearing. Lack of fitness to attend work does not necessarily mean a lack of fitness to prepare for the hearing. The tribunal finds that the claimant did have sufficient time to prepare for cross examination. The events are very time constrained. The claimant had the bundle of documents. The tribunal believes that if the claimant had insufficient time, by reason of ill- health, to prepare for the hearing, then the appropriate remedy is to apply for an adjournment, supported by satisfactory medical evidence.[11]It is not appropriate to strike out the response on the grounds of the assertion that there are lies in the respondent’s witness statements. The claimant can challenge the evidence provided by the respondent’s witnesses in cross examination. It is for the tribunal to make findings of fact having heard all the evidence.[12]The wording of the emails from the respondent’s representative to the claimant is unfortunate. To be called ignorant was understandably upsetting for the claimant. The respondent’s representative was indicating to the claimant that it was the respondent’s view that the claimant was being unreasonable in the conduct of the case and that matter would be brought to the attention of the tribunal. The tribunal is not satisfied that the conduct of the respondent’s representative, that the tone and timing of the e-mails sent in advance of the hearing, has adversely affected the claimant’s ability to prepare for the hearing or affected the fairness of the hearing.[13]In all the circumstances the tribunal finds that a fair hearing is still possible. It is not in the interests of justice to strike out the response. The application is refused.[14]The claimant indicated an intention to pursue a costs application. EJ Porter ordered that any such application be made and considered at the end of the hearing after the determination of the issues. No such application was made.[15]The claimant indicated an intention to make a claim for compensation for injury to feelings and aggravated damages. The tribunal confirmed that it had no jurisdiction to hear such a claim for compensation in a claim for breach of contract. Any such claim should be pursued in a different jurisdiction. Submissions on the substantive merits of the claim[16]The claimant relied upon written submissions which the tribunal has considered with care but does not repeat here. The claimant made additional oral submissions which the tribunal has considered with care but does not rehearse in full here. In essence it was asserted that:- 16.1. The respondent has not provided a call log to prove that it tried to telephone the referees provided by him; 16.2. The respondent did not engage fairly and did not acknowledge the mismanagements of the recruitment process; 16.3. the claimant cannot be blamed for issues outside his control. He was shocked that his referee T Care Services Limited had not responded but they did respond in January 2025; 16.4. Mrs Melia who was dealing with the references was on holiday from the 1-10 July and no one was allocated to do her work in her absence. This was unfair; 16.5. it is outside of his control if S Care is not regarded as a credible company by the respondent. The claimant provided as much information to the respondent as possible to enable them to contact the referees. It was not his fault that the respondent was not satisfied with the responses it received; 16.6. the claimant has worked with children with no safeguarding issues raised; 16.7. the claimant undertook training in preparation for the job. He worked day and night to complete the training.[17]Consultant for the respondent made a number of detailed submissions which the tribunal has considered with care but does not rehearse in full here. In essence it was asserted that:- 17.1. The offer of employment was conditional upon the receipt of two credible supporting references; 17.2. The obtaining of credible supporting references is an essential part of the respondent’s recruitment process. It operates the policy for all candidates. 17.3. The claimant’s assertion that this policy was created simply in response to this litigation is preposterous: the fact that it was updated in May 2024 is a coincidence; 17.4. The fact that a copy of the policy was not sent to the claimant does not negate the respondent’s reliance on it; 17.5. the policy required references to be verbally verified where the applicant works with vulnerable people/ children. The claimant was made aware of this requirement. He provided telephone numbers for this purpose; 17.6. the claimant provided 3 references. 2 from previous employment: T Care Services Limited (“T Care ”) and S Care Solutions Limited (“S Care”) and one from his current employer, M Homecare (“M Homecare”) Mrs Melia requested references from all three. M Homecare completed the references and verbal verification was obtained but the claimant had only worked there for five shifts. Mrs Melia pursued the references from S Care and T Care on a number of occasions. The reference from S Care dated 12 June 2024 was not credible and did not satisfy the requirements of the respondent’s policy. There was no reason given for termination of the employment. There was no provision of the organisation’s name and address, no official stamp, no letterhead. Verbal verification of this reference was even more pertinent. Four different telephone numbers were provided. In itself this was a red flag but Mr Sharp did telephone the numbers provided but was unable to make contact with Sovereign, was unable to verify the reference. 17.7. the fact that T Care filed a reference in January 2025 is irrelevant. It was too late after the process, six months after withdrawal of the offer. 17.8. The claimant did not satisfy the conditions of the offer of employment. The respondent was within its right to withdraw the offer. 17.9. The offer was withdrawn. There was no binding contract of employment.Evidence
[18]The claimant gave evidence.[19]The respondent relied upon the evidence of:- 19.1. Mrs Christine Melia, Office Manager; 19.2. Mr Robert George Sharp, currently the Training and Quality Assurance Manager of the Respondent. At the relevant time he was the Registered Manager at the Respondent’s Knowsley House children’s home based in Sheffield. 19.3. Mr Gary Shillcock, Service Manager[20]The witnesses provided their evidence from written witness statements. They were subject to cross-examination, questioning by the tribunal and, where appropriate, re-examination.[21]An agreed bundle of documents was presented. Additional documents were presented during the course of the Hearing, either in accordance with the Orders outlined above or with consent. References to page numbers in these Reasons are references to the page numbers in the agreed Bundle.Facts
[22]Having considered all the evidence the tribunal has made the following findings of fact. Where a conflict of evidence arose the tribunal has resolved the same, on the balance of probabilities, in accordance with the following findings.[23]The respondent company provides residential child care at various locations across the North of England.[24]The Respondent practices safer recruitment, to make sure that all staff are suitable to work with children and young people, ensuring a safe and positive environment for its service users. The Respondent has in place a Selection & Recruitment of Staff policy, pp.69-72. This has been operated over the last 10 years or so. It is reviewed regularly. The latest Policy which appears in the bundle is dated May 2024. The claimant’s assertion that the respondent created this policy in an attempt to create a false defence to this claim is rejected.[25]Extracts from the Policy read as follows: Appropriate job references and checks will be taken up for all applicants; A minimum of two referees will be contacted, one of whom must be the applicants current, or most recent, employer; All references will be requested in writing, using appropriate forms for the referee to complete and return as appropriate; Any posts that the applicant has been employed in working with vulnerable adults and/or children will, as far as is reasonably possible be contacted to confirm employment dates, reasons for leaving the employment, any safeguarding concerns and suitability to work with children, p.70.[26]The policy goes on to state that “any offer of employment will depend upon the satisfactory outcome of references, DBS checks, Declarations of Suitability and Medical Fitness”, p.71.[27]The claimant applied for the role of Children’s Residential Support Worker at Knowsley House, Sheffield. He was successful at interview and was provided with a job offer on 7 May 2025, when Ms Melia emailed the claimant to confirm that he was successful at interview and attached a copy of his offer letter p.75. The Claimant’s job offer was stated to be subject to satisfactory completion of: o the pre-employment health questionnaire; o two credible supporting references; o appropriate enhanced DBS clearance; and o acceptance of the standard terms set out in the ‘Statement of Particulars of Employment’.[28]Mrs Melia provided the paperwork which the claimant was required to complete.[29]On 22 May 2024 the claimant sent part of the requested documents and completed paperwork.[30]Recruitment onboarding is handled by Office Manager, Mrs Christine Melia. It is the standard practice of the respondent that she obtains the required written references and the Manager of the relevant Children’s home is required to verbally verify the references with the former and/or current employers.[31]Following a call with the claimant on 28 May 2024, Mrs Melia emailed him setting out the missing documents/information she needed for his file, pp.102-103. In this email, she requested the claimant to send the contact information from the two most recent employers listed on his CV – Elysium Healthcare and Cygnet Hospital, pp.102-103, p.43. The claimant consented to the respondent seeking references, p.106.[32]On 31 May 2024, the claimant emailed stating, amongst other things, that he had worked as an agency support worker and senior support worker. It was Mrs Melia’s understanding from this email that the claimant had worked for Elysium Healthcare and Cygnet Hospital through T Care Services Limited (“T Care”) and S Care Solutions (“S Care”) as an agency worker. The claimant confirmed that as correct.[33]On 3 June 2024, the claimant emailed to Mrs Melia a copy of his application form, as requested, which was completed retrospectively, p.102, pp.125- 138. Within the application form, he provided the contact details for T Care and S Care in order for the respondent to seek references, p.125-126. The claimant also set out that he was in current employment with M Homecare, where he commenced on 7 February 2024, p.126. Mrs Melia replied to the claimant confirming that she had written to S Care and T Care for references. She also requested the contact details of M Homecare because they were his current employer, p.144.[34]On 6 June 2024, Mrs Melia emailed the claimant stating, amongst other things, that she had again chased the references and asked the claimant to chase to hurry them along, p.147. On 7 June 2024, the claimant emailed Mrs Melia asking her to let him know once she had received a reference and again on 10 June 2024 confirming that he had messaged the referees and asked if Mrs Melia had received any response, p.146. Mrs Melia informed the claimant on 10 June 2024 that she had not received any references back and that she would chase again, p.145. The claimant responded and informed Mrs Melia of the correct email address for S Care as the email address provided in his application form, p.145, was incorrect.[35]On 11 June 2024, the claimant enquired as to when he could start his induction, p.160. Mrs Melia informed the claimant that the respondent needed all references back and then to verbally verify them. Once this was done, an induction could be arranged for him, p.161. Mrs Melia went on to ask the claimant if he wanted Mrs Melia to set him up with the online training, confirming he would be paid in his first month’s wage if the courses were completed before he started employment. Mrs Melia informed him that he would be paid 3 hours for the CPI training and half an hour each for the training hub courses, if he chose to complete the courses before he was given his start date p.161. This was regarded by the respondent as a reasonable amount of time to complete the course content, and that it should not have taken longer. The claimant did not raise any issue with the proposed times, nor did he request additional time to complete them.[36]On 12 June 2024, the respondent received a written reference from S Care , pp.162-165. Mrs Melia confirmed receipt of this reference with the claimant on 13 June 2024, p.166.[37]On 18 June 2024, the claimant informed Mrs Melia that the correct person to contact for M Homecare was Melissa Peters. Mrs Peters quickly provided a reference for the claimant which was verbally checked and confirmed by the Registered Manager of the Knowsley House, Mr Robert Sharp on 24 June 2024, p.227.[38]Mrs Melia did not receive any response from T Care to her request for a reference. A reference was provided by that company for the first time in January 2025.[39]It was the role of Mr Sharp to verbally verify the reference from S Care. The telephone number provided on the reference was a London based landline. He tried calling that number but without success. The claimant on request provided a further 3 mobile telephone numbers for S Care. Mr Sharp called all the phone numbers provided by the claimant but without success.[40]The inability to get in touch with the referee on four different phone numbers made Mr Sharp feel uneasy about the legitimacy and credibility of the reference. He therefore did some further research into the company with a Google search and checking Companies House. There was no company website or landline. Companies House showed only one or two people employed by the company and the finances on the accounts showed very little monies in at any point. The company had been registered in Barnsley for a short time and previously in Rotherham. The registered place of business in Rotherham was in fact a Local Authority care home for the elderly. All these findings increased Mr Sharp’s concerns around the credibility of the reference. As Registered Manager of the Children’s Home Mr Sharp decided that he did not want to take the claimant’s application any further.[41]On 15 July 2024, Mr Sharp emailed Ms Melia setting out his findings. Within that email, he stated that the situation left him feeling uneasy in regards to the respondent’s safe recruitment process and it was his view that the offer of employment to the claimant should be withdrawn, p.244.[42]Following this Ms Melia discussed the reference and the claimant’s application with Mr Gary Shillcock, Service Manager of the Respondent.[43]Ms Melia reported to Mr Shillcock her attempts to obtain references and her communications with the claimant and Mr Sharp. She provided Mr Shillcock with a copy of Mr Sharp’s email.[44]Mr Shillcock considered what Ms Melia had reported to him, the respondent’s recruitment policy (as set out in paragraph 3 above), and section 32 and Schedule 2 of the Children’s Home Regulations 2015. This sets out the information required in respect of persons seeking to carry on, manage or work at a children’s home. It states: “3. Two written references, including a reference from the persons most recent employer, if any. 4. If a person has previously worked in a position involving work with children or vulnerable adults, verification so far as reasonably practicable of the reason why the employment or position ended. 5. Documentary evidence of any qualifications which the person considers relevant for the position. 6. A full employment history, together with a satisfactory explanation of any gaps in employment, in writing.”[45]After considering these matters Mr Shillcock was not satisfied that the claimant had met the requirements of the respondent’s recruitment policy, the Children’s Home Regulations 2015, or his offer of employment in that the respondent had not received and verified two credible references.[46]There was one credible reference from M Care but the claimant had only worked 5 shifts for them. There was no reply from T Care. Mr Shillcock reached the honest and genuine conclusion that the reference from S Care was not credible because:• The written reference had failed to provide the full information requested. The written reference at pages 162-162 did not provide the reason for termination of the claimant’s employment. It did not provide the organisation’s name and address or an Official Stamp. The form states “If you do not have official stamp then please attach this reference to signed headed paper/compliments slip”. The person completing the reference had failed to do this.• Mr Sharp had been unable to verbally verify the reference;• The reference could have come from anyone[47]The respondent is very stringent with references. Unless the recruiting managers are 100% certain a person is going to be safe to work with children, they do not go ahead with any conditional offer of employment.[48]Having considered all the information, Mr Shillcock was concerned about employing the claimant. He could not take a chance with safeguarding. He therefore authorised the withdrawal of the claimant’s offer of employment because the claimant had failed to provide two credible supporting references. [On this the tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Shillcock. The tribunal does not accept the claimant’s assertion that he provided the suitable references and the respondent withdrew the offer because the claimant had started to complain about the length of time it was taking the respondent to complete its pre-employment enquiries.][49]On 15 July 2024, by e-mail, the claimant’s offer of employment was withdrawn on the basis that the respondent was “ unable to complete the satisfactory pre-employment checks” p.247.The Law
[50]The tribunal has considered and where appropriate applied the authorities referred to in submissions.[51]It is not uncommon for offers of employment to be made subject to a condition, such as the obtaining of satisfactory references. In such circumstances the contract will not normally take effect until that condition is satisfied (a ‘condition precedent’).[52]The employer must make it clear to the employee that an offer is subject to a condition if, in the event of the condition not being satisfied, it wants to rely on that condition to vitiate the contract.[53]It seems that the test for deciding whether a reference meets an employer’s requirements is a subjective one. In Wishart v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd 1990 ICR 794, CA the Court of Appeal commented that where an offer of employment is conditional upon ‘satisfactory’ references being furnished, that is likely to mean satisfactory to the employer. The employer is reserving the right to make a decision once the references have been received and studied. Determination of the Issues[54]This includes, where appropriate, any additional findings of fact not expressly contained within the findings above but made in the same manner after considering all the evidence.[55]The offer of employment was conditional upon the satisfactory completion of two credible supporting references.[56]That was made clear to the claimant.[57]It was for the respondent to decide whether the references provided were credible.[58]The respondent took considerable time and effort to try to obtain those references.[59]In doing so it followed its long held Recruitment Policy. The respondent required a written reference to be verbally verified by the Home Manager.[60]The fact that the claimant was not advised of this step at the time of the offer letter, the fact that the claimant was not advised of the existence of the Recruitment Policy, was not provided with a copy, is irrelevant. It was for the respondent to decide whether it had received two credible supporting references. It was reasonable for the respondent to follow its long established Recruitment Policy without informing the claimant of its terms.[61]S Care supplied a written reference which did not contain all the information requested by the respondent. Mr Sharp made numerous attempts to contact S Care on the telephone numbers provided by the claimant. He even carried out his own investigation to try to find an address or website or other telephone number for S Care.[62]The respondent follows its Recruitment Policy as it is required to do as a provider of residential care to children and vulnerable people.[63]Mr Shillcock held the honest and genuine belief that the reference from S Care was not credible. He regarded this as a red flag safeguarding issue. He therefore authorised the withdrawal of the job offer.[64]Therefore, the offer of a contract of employment was conditional upon the satisfactory completion of two credible supporting references. That condition was not met.[65]The respondent was entitled to withdraw the offer. It had genuine safeguarding issues because it was unable to obtain a credible reference from S Care.[66]The claimant has taken this withdrawal of the job offer as an allegation of a safeguarding issue against him personally. However, that is not the case. The respondent is obliged to follow its Recruitment Policy. It cannot take risks with the safeguarding of children. The risk arose because of the failure of S Care to provide a credible reference. I would agree with the respondent that the claimant may wish to take issue with S Care – and indeed T Care – not the respondent.[67]The fact that T Care provided a reference in January 2025 is irrelevant. The offer had been withdrawn by then. There was no obligation on the respondent to review its position at that stage.[68]There was no contract of employment between the claimant and the respondent.[69]The claim for breach of contract must fail. Approved byThe Law
[1]The claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed upon withdrawal.[2]The application to strike out the Response is refused.[3]The claim for breach of contract is not well-founded and is hereby dismissed. Approved by