Case 4103389/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Muir v Tapi Carpets and Floors Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 4103389/2025
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Muir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Muir started work for Tapi Carpets and Floors Ltd on 16 March 2020 as a Home consultant. After Trustpilot complaints about customer service in October 2024, the respondent investigated, held disciplinary proceedings, issued a written warning on 8 January 2025, and rejected the claimant's appeal. Following a further complaint, the respondent decided to change his role to estimator and told him on 3 March 2025 that he should return the company van. The claimant later grieved about the disciplinary process and the van/role change, and also pursued a DSAR. He resigned by email on 9 September 2025 saying he was resigning under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 because of cumulative breaches and the DSAR issue.
The tribunal held that there was no fundamental breach of contract. It found nothing in the disciplinary or grievance handling that amounted to a breach, and it accepted that the decision not to contact the customer's daughter was understandable. It also found that the change of role was not yet implemented as a contractual change, because the claimant's salary and contractual details had remained unchanged and the respondent had agreed that no changes would be made pending the grievance outcome. The contract allowed the claimant to be required to undertake other duties, and there was no evidence that the loss of the van or the proposed move to estimator would materially reduce his income.
Even if the role and van changes could have amounted to a breach, the tribunal held that the claimant delayed too long in resigning. He was told about the proposed change on 3 March 2025 but did not resign until 9 September 2025, after remaining off sick and after being told on 30 May 2025 that the respondent regarded the DSAR as dealt with and that any further complaint could be taken to the ICO. The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on the DSAR issue as a last straw and applied the approach in Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. It therefore dismissed the constructive dismissal claim. It also dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims, and made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract. It rejected the complaints about the disciplinary and grievance process, the change of role and removal of the van, and the handling of the DSAR. Even if the role/van change could have been a breach, the claimant waited over six months before resigning, so the contract had been affirmed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the respondent did not make any unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages. The reasons record that no evidence was led by the claimant on this issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach the claimant's contract of employment. It found no contractual breach in the way the disciplinary and grievance matters were handled, and it accepted that the proposed role change had not been implemented as a contractual change. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp 1978 ICR 221
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust 2019 ICR 1
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.