Case 4103011/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McGrouther v Represented by Mr M Hughes Trainee Solicitor Express Joinery Products — 2018
- Case reference
- 4103011/2018
- Decision date
- 26 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McGrouther
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C McGrouther, brought a breach of contract claim arising from the termination of his modern apprenticeship with Express Joinery Products and a claim for untaken annual leave. The respondent did not lodge an ET3 for this claim and did not appear at the final hearing. The tribunal heard evidence only from the claimant and accepted him as a credible and candid witness.
The tribunal held that the claimant had been engaged under a contract of apprenticeship, not merely a contract of service. It relied on the apprenticeship authorities it cited, including Dunk v George Waller and Son Ltd, Flett v Matheson, Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd and Whitely v Marton Electrical Ltd, and on the terms of the Modern Apprenticeship Training Agreement. On the facts found, the central purpose of the agreement was training over a fixed period ending on 31 January 2020, and the respondent was not entitled to end it early because of absences.
The claimant was dismissed on 12 October 2017 after a period of absence, without notice. In assessing loss, the tribunal accepted that he had mitigated his loss by increasing his work at Pizza Hut and later obtaining a new apprenticeship with Robert Reid Joinery. It awarded £699.58 for the period to 1 December 2017, plus £225.25 for one week’s notice pay, making £924.83 on the breach of contract claim.
The tribunal rejected the claimed loss of opportunity beyond the date the claimant obtained the new apprenticeship. It held that the new contract, and its later premature termination by the subsequent employer, broke the chain of causation as a novus actus interveniens. On holiday entitlement, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had taken only two days’ leave and awarded £225.25 for five untaken days. The total award was £1,150.08.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was engaged on a contract of apprenticeship and that the respondent was not entitled to terminate it early in the circumstances. The award comprised £699.58 for wage loss up to 1 December 2017 plus £225.25 for one week’s notice pay. The separate argument for longer-term loss of opportunity was rejected on causation/remoteness grounds after the claimant obtained a new apprenticeship. | Upheld | — | £925 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had taken only two days’ holiday during the employment and was due payment for five untaken days, calculated at £50.40 per day. | Upheld | — | £225 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,150
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Dunk v George Waller and Son Ltd
- Flett v Matheson
- Wallace v CA Roofing Services Ltd
- Whitely v Marton Electrical Ltd
- novus actus interveniens
- mitigation
- causation and remoteness
- s.230(2) ERA 1996
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.