Mr D Tofield v Accenture — 2023

Mr D Tofield brought claims for unpaid notice pay, unpaid holiday pay and breach of contract against Accenture. The tribunal treated the central issue as one of contractual interpretation: whether he was still within his probationary period when he resigned on 11 January 2023, or whether he had moved onto the 12-week notice period in his contract. The hearing was dealt with as a substantive preliminary issue on that contractual question.

The tribunal found that the offer letter of 28 March 2022 required a six-month probationary period and stated that probation would continue until the claimant was informed in writing that it had been successfully completed. Clause 9.1 of the signed contract said that 12 weeks' notice applied unless he was working under probation as a new starter, in which case the notice period was as set out in the offer letter. Clause 24.3 was held to be clear and to incorporate the offer letter for new joiners.

The claimant's arguments that the wording was ambiguous, should be read contra preferentum, or should be limited by implied terms were rejected. The tribunal also rejected the submission that the probation clause was uncertain or unreasonable, and referred to Whitney v Monster Worldwide Ltd on certainty in contractual terms. It held that the possibility that probation might not end on an exact six-month date did not make the clause unclear.

On that basis, the claimant was still a probationary employee when he resigned and his contractual notice period was four weeks only. The respondent's position that it would pay four weeks in lieu of notice was consistent with the contract, and all claims were dismissed because they all depended on the claimant's contention that he was entitled to a longer notice period.