Case 3313188/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr T Moore, General Manager — 2023
- Case reference
- 3313188/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Milk Club Deliveries Ltd as a milk delivery person from 9 May 2022 until 21 September 2022. The only live issue was the contractual notice period: the claimant said he had completed probation and was entitled to two months' notice, while the respondent said probation had been extended by three months at a probation review meeting on 14 August 2022, leaving only one week's notice.
The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Mr Moore, the respondent's general manager. It noted that the respondent did not provide written notice of the probation decision as required by the contract, but the evidence on whether the claimant had been told that probation was extended was directly conflicted. The tribunal found it could not prefer one account over the other and described the decision as finely balanced.
Applying the burden of proof and the balance of probabilities, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved that he had completed probation or that he had a reasonable expectation that probation had ended. It therefore could not find that he had a two-month notice entitlement rather than a one-week notice period, and the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed as unfounded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was pleaded as wrongful dismissal or notice pay. The dispute turned on whether the claimant had a one-week or two-month contractual notice period after the respondent said probation had been extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- burden of proof
- balance of probabilities
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.