Case 4111247/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Chisholm v City Gate Construction (Scotland) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4111247/2019
- Decision date
- 2 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Chisholm
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Chisholm was employed by City Gate Construction (Scotland) Ltd from 20 June 2016 and had become a Site Manager under a written contract providing for one month’s notice. On 1 July 2019 he told the respondent that he intended to resign and finish on 23 August 2019 so that he would not trigger training costs before a planned trip abroad. He then confirmed that position by email. The respondent replied the same morning saying it accepted the resignation but required him to leave on 29 July 2019, and the claimant made clear that he did not agree to that revised date.
The tribunal held that the claimant’s resignation was valid even though he specified a termination date beyond the minimum and contractual notice period. It found that the claimant did not withdraw his resignation and that the respondent had no contractual right to waive the notice period and end the contract earlier with payment in lieu of notice. By cutting short the notice period without the claimant’s agreement, the respondent converted the resignation into a dismissal. Although the respondent said the reason was commercial, the tribunal found it did not establish a potentially fair reason under s.98 ERA 1996, so it did not need to go on to decide reasonableness under s.98(4).
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The claimant was 35, had three years’ service, and had a gross weekly wage of £711.46 and a net weekly wage of £556.36. The tribunal assessed the basic award at £1,575, being three weeks’ pay capped at the April 2019 statutory maximum of £525 per week, and the compensatory award at £2,058.53, based on 3.7 weeks’ net loss to 23 August 2019. It made no award for loss of statutory rights. The total monetary award was £3,633.53, and the tribunal recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
The breach of contract claim was dismissed. On the tribunal’s findings, the respondent had given the claimant four weeks’ notice on 1 July 2019, so there was no contractual failure to provide notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant gave valid notice on 1 July 2019 specifying a leaving date of 23 August 2019, but the respondent unilaterally shortened the end date to 29 July 2019 without a contractual right to do so. That converted the resignation into a dismissal, and the respondent did not show a potentially fair reason under s.98 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,634 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach the contract by failing to give notice, because it found that the respondent gave four weeks' notice of termination on 1 July 2019 and that the claimant's contractual notice position was not unlawfully cut short in a way that supported this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,634
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,059
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.86(2) ERA 1996
- Brennan v C Lindley & Co Limited
- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Marshall (Cambridge) Limited v Hamblin
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) 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.