Mr. N. Rutter v J R Dynamics Limited — 2024

Mr N. Rutter brought a single complaint of breach of contract arising from non-payment of part of his notice period between 16 April and 28 April 2024. He later confirmed that he was not pursuing any complaint about pension contributions. The parties agreed that, if breach were established, damages would be £1,833.43.

The tribunal found that the claimant started work on 1 March 2024 as an embedded system developer on a three-month probationary contract, with four weeks' notice on termination. The respondent decided on 28 March 2024 to end the employment within the probationary period. The claimant chose to work out his notice. The parties agreed that he would work from home in April using company equipment, but the tribunal found that this was expressly on the basis that he would perform the allocated work efficiently. The tribunal accepted that there were communication difficulties and that the claimant said these were caused by Google mail and equipment issues, but it did not need to decide where fault lay.

The tribunal held that the claimant had no contractual right to insist on working from home because his place of work under the contract was the respondent's premises and there had been no contractual variation supported by consideration. It referred to Buckland -v- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation [2010] IRLR 445 and Tenon FM Ltd -v- Cawley 2018 EWHC 1972. Even if there had been an oral variation, the tribunal found it was conditional on productive work, and that condition was not met. When the claimant refused to return to the respondent's premises, the tribunal found that he breached a fundamental term of the contract. The respondent was therefore entitled to treat the contract as terminated and to stop paying the remaining notice pay. The breach of contract complaint was dismissed.