Case 4103454/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr George McDermid v New Apex Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103454/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr George McDermid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr George McDermid worked for New Apex Ltd from 6 March 2023 to 28 April 2023 as senior business development manager-Scotland. The Tribunal found that the contractual reference to a 'car allowance up to £250.00/month' was not a fixed monthly allowance, but a limit on what could be claimed for car mileage or related business travel expenses. On that basis, there was no unlawful deduction in respect of the car allowance, and the respondent had also paid the claimant all work-related expenses and, by the hearing, all SSP due.
When the claim was presented, there had been disputed deductions relating to sick pay and holiday pay, but the Tribunal found those sums had since been paid. It therefore held the section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim was well founded, but made no further monetary order on that head because the amounts due had already been discharged.
On the notice issue, the Tribunal found the claimant's contract allowed termination during probation on one week's prior notice. The claimant was dismissed immediately on 28 April 2023 without notice or payment in lieu. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had been in repudiatory breach of contract, and considered the termination was more likely prompted by his continued absence and the tone of his 27 April 2023 email than by the misconduct alleged in the termination letter. It therefore ordered the respondent to pay one week's pay in damages; the operative judgment states £576.30.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held the section 23 ERA 1996 claim was well founded, but the respondent had by the hearing paid the amounts then due. It found the contractual 'car allowance' was not a separate fixed allowance, and that the disputed sick pay and holiday pay deductions had been paid, so no further order was made on this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's notice under the probationary contract, was not given notice or payment in lieu, and was not in repudiatory breach of contract. The judgment's operative order states £576.30, while paragraph 45 of the reasons records £576.80. | Upheld | — | £576 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £576
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 23 ERA 1996
- repudiatory breach of contract
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.