Case 2207736/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. CARABIN v Calypso Technology Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207736/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. CARABIN
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Carabin brought a breach of contract claim for notice pay and a separate claim for £120 expenses. The tribunal found that his contract, dated 23 April 2020, stated a commencement date of 26 June 2020, but he was told shortly before starting to begin on Monday 29 June 2020. His first day at work was 29 June 2020, and he was paid from that date.
Construing clause 7.1, the tribunal held that "the date of joining the Company" meant the date he actually started work, not the earlier contractual commencement date. Applying the corresponding date rule, the initial three-month probationary period expired on 29 September 2020. The respondent extended probation in writing on 29 September 2020, before expiry, so the extension complied with the contract.
The tribunal also held that the two-week notice provision in clause 7.1 applied throughout the probationary period, including any extension. It rejected the submission that a term should be implied requiring reasonable justification before probation could be extended, finding no legal basis for that implication. On that construction, when the respondent dismissed the claimant on 16 November 2020, he was still on probation and had been given the correct two weeks' notice, so the breach of contract claim failed.
In the alternative, if the start date in clause 1.1 had to be treated as 26 June 2020, the tribunal found it had been varied to 29 June 2020 by agreement or by conduct. The expenses claim did not proceed to a merits determination because the respondent had already paid £80 and agreed to pay the remaining £40, and the claimant withdrew that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal held the claimant was only entitled to two weeks' notice during probation and that the respondent was not in breach when it dismissed him on 16 November 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for £120 expenses. The respondent had already paid £80 and agreed at the hearing to pay the remaining £40, after which the claimant withdrew the claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd
- Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
- Johnson v Unisys Ltd
- Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority
- Simmonds v Dowty Seals Ltd
- Abrahall v Nottingham City Council
- Dodds v Walker
- contra proferentem rule
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.