I Malyk v Teleperformance Contact Ltd (England and Wales : Unfair Dismissal)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Claimant was employed by Company A from 3 May 2022 to 27 August 2024 as a Regional Finance Business Partner (Europe), under a contract referring to a home office in The City and UK employment law. [1][2]

In June 2024, the Claimant sought to relocate to France while continuing to work under her UK contract. Company A refused, citing legal, tax and financial concerns, and instructed her to attend work in the UK. [3][4][5][6]

The Claimant continued working from France. Following an investigation, suspension and disciplinary hearing, Company A dismissed her for some other substantial reason with two months’ notice. Her appeal was unsuccessful. [7][8][9][10][11]

The Claimant brought an unfair-dismissal claim. A breach-of-contract claim was later added, subject to the issue of time limitation. The hearing took place on 16–17 June 2026. [12][13][14][15]

Legal Issues Presented

1. What was the reason for dismissal, and was it a potentially fair reason under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? [16][17]
2. If misconduct was relied upon, was there a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation? [18]
3. Was dismissal within the range of reasonable responses, and was a fair procedure adopted? [19][20][21]
4. Was the breach-of-contract claim presented in time? [22][23]
5. Did Company A breach the employment contract, including by issuing the instruction to work in the UK or breaching mutual trust and confidence? [24][25][26]

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant’s Arguments

• The contract did not expressly prohibit working from outside the UK, and the instruction to work in the UK was an unlawful unilateral variation. [24][27][28]
• The disciplinary policy was irrelevant, suspension was inappropriate or excessive, and the suspension extension was not communicated. [20][21][29][30]
• The dismissal was a means of avoiding redundancy, lacked business necessity, and was inconsistent with the treatment of other employees working abroad. [31][28][32]
• Company A acted in breach of mutual trust and confidence and in bad faith. [25][33]

Respondent’s Arguments

• The dismissal was for some other substantial reason under section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alternatively misconduct arising from failure to follow a reasonable instruction. [16]
• The contract required work in the UK, and continued employment from France under a UK contract created legal, tax and financial risks. [3][4][5][10]
• The instruction, suspension and disciplinary process were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. [6][9][29][34]
• A French contract was not financially viable because of operational changes and reduced business in Europe. [10][35]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal found that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason, not gross misconduct. Company A believed that employing the Claimant permanently in France under a UK contract would create legal and financial difficulties, while a French contract was not viable. [37][38]

The contract was held to require work from the UK. The Tribunal relied on the UK addresses, the reference to a home office, UK employment-law provisions and the requirement to be eligible to work in the UK. In the alternative, a UK work location was implied because the contract would lack commercial coherence without it. [44][45][43]

The instruction to work in the UK was therefore reasonable and was not a breach of contract. The Claimant continued working from France despite the instruction, potentially exposing Company A to legal risk. [46]

The dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that it was intended to avoid redundancy, and found no obvious alternative because the Claimant insisted on working from France and a French contract was not viable. [31][40][47]

The procedural challenges failed. Use of the disciplinary procedure was appropriate because refusal to follow a reasonable management instruction could constitute a disciplinary matter. Suspension was justified to prevent continuing legal risk, and its continuation beyond five working days did not make the process unfair despite the absence of a communicated extension. [29][34][30]

The Tribunal accepted that Company A could have communicated its hybrid-work policy more clearly, but held that the later instruction was clear and reasonable. It also found no unfair inconsistency in the treatment of another employee who had been required either to return to the UK or move to a local contract. [28][32]

The breach-of-contract claim was presented approximately nine months after the ordinary three-month limit. The Claimant’s lack of legal training did not establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier, particularly as she had submitted an unfair-dismissal claim in time. [48][49]

In any event, the Tribunal concluded that Company A had not breached the contract. [50]

Holding and Implications

Unfair dismissal claim dismissed. The dismissal was for a potentially fair substantial reason, was within the range of reasonable responses and followed a fair procedure. [51][37][52]

Breach-of-contract claim dismissed. It was out of time, and Company A had not breached the employment contract in any event. [53][49][50]

The direct effect was that the Claimant obtained no remedy on either claim. The decision set no new precedent.