Case 1300598/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Simpson v Westcott Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300598/2021
- Decision date
- 1 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Simpson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Westcott Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Limited as a trainee engineer from 3 August 2020 to 4 January 2021. Although the paperwork used both “apprentice” and “trainee engineer”, the tribunal found that the relationship was, in substance, a common law contract of apprenticeship. It relied on the parties’ shared understanding that the role was focused on learning, the use of the apprenticeship rate of pay, the planned progression towards college-based training and qualification, and the fact that the claimant worked under supervision rather than as an ordinary employee doing productive work alone.
Applying the authorities it cited, including Dunk v George Waller and Son Ltd, Chassis and Cab Specialists Ltd v Lee, Flett v Matheson, and Commissioners for HMRC v Jones and ors, the tribunal held that the apprenticeship was for a fixed term ending on 3 October 2021. It accepted that the written contract contained a termination clause and probationary wording, but concluded those provisions were standard wording and did not alter the underlying apprenticeship character of the arrangement. On that basis, the respondent was not entitled to dismiss the claimant for redundancy before the fixed term expired, and the breach of contract claim succeeded.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay. It found that the holiday year ran from 1 May to 30 April, that the claimant had worked for five complete months by the time of dismissal, and that his contractual leave entitlement complied with the statutory minimum. On its calculations, the claimant accrued 8.35 days’ holiday excluding bank holidays, had taken 4.5 days, and therefore had 3.85 days outstanding at termination.
No final monetary award was set in the liability judgment. The tribunal directed the parties to try to agree compensation and holiday pay by 14 September 2021, failing which a separate remedy hearing would be listed. It noted that damages for the breach of contract claim would need to take account of the fixed term to 3 October 2021 and any mitigation issues, but those matters were not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was employed under a common law contract of apprenticeship and that the respondent was not entitled to end it on redundancy grounds before the fixed term expired on 3 October 2021. Liability was found, but quantum was left to be agreed or to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued but untaken holiday on termination. The precise monetary sum was not determined at this stage and was left for agreement or a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Dunk v George Waller and Son Ltd
- Chassis and Cab Specialists Ltd v Lee
- Flett v Matheson
- Commissioners for HMRC v Jones and ors (Trading as Holmescales Riding Centre)
- Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd
- Regulation 13, Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14, Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 15, Working Time Regulations 1998
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.