Mr J Thumwood v Wooden and Steel Ship Repairs Ltd — 2025

Mr J Thumwood was employed by Wooden and Steel Ship Repairs Ltd from 30 October 2023 as a general skills worker on £20,080 a year. He had a contractual notice period of one month. He was dismissed on 27 February 2024 for poor performance and told he would work his notice, but on 28 February 2024 he was told he would not be permitted to do so and was paid only one week’s pay in lieu of notice, £585. The respondent resisted the claim by alleging misleading CV and interview information, grossly negligent work on the Somerset, and a supposed plan to fabricate a personal injury claim. Mr Thumwood later raised a formal notice-pay grievance on 9 April 2024, which was answered by email without a meeting or appeal.

Applying the authorities it cited on repudiatory breach and mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the respondent had not proved a fundamental breach by the claimant. It accepted that Mr Thumwood’s work on the Somerset and on company vessels was inadequate, but found it was not so grave and weighty as to justify summary dismissal. The tribunal also found that, even if the performance issues had been repudiatory, the respondent had affirmed the contract by allowing him to continue working for about six weeks after the Somerset incident. It rejected the respondent’s case that the CV and interview were misleading, and it found that the conversation with colleague Elliott on 28 February 2024 did not objectively indicate any intention to fabricate a personal injury claim, either alone or as part of a cumulative course of conduct.

The breach of contract claim therefore succeeded. On remedy, the tribunal awarded notice pay and recorded £1,750 in the formal order, while the reasons calculate a balance of £1,755 after deducting the £585 already paid from one month’s gross pay of £2,340. The reasons also record a 10% ACAS uplift of £175 under s207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal found the ACAS Code applied because the respondent had no grievance process, did not hold a grievance meeting, and did not offer an appeal, and it treated the respondent’s size and resources as relevant to the uplift assessment.