Case 8001475/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Scott Curtis v Sureserve Asset Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001475/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluskey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Scott Curtis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Scott Curtis was employed by Sureserve Asset Services Ltd from 22 April 2024 until his redundancy dismissal on 14 June 2024. The written contract dated 6 April 2024 contained a probationary period clause providing one week’s notice in the first month and one month’s notice thereafter during probation, a three-month general notice clause subject to probation, and a clause stating that variation was only effective if in writing and signed by the parties. The respondent’s 10 June 2024 redundancy letter referred to a payment in lieu of three months’ notice, but the 27 June 2024 email corrected that to one month.
On the notice-pay complaint, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that he was entitled to three months’ notice or that the probationary notice provision did not apply to redundancy. It held that clause 19.1 was expressly subject to clause 3, that the claimant was within the probationary period at termination, and that his contractual entitlement was therefore one month’s notice or payment in lieu of one month’s salary. The tribunal also rejected the submission that the 10 June 2024 correspondence varied the contract, because clause 37 required a written variation signed by both parties and the communications were an error by the respondent, not a mutual variation.
On the car-allowance complaint, the tribunal held that clause 15 provided a vehicle allowance of £4,400 per annum for business purposes and did not create an entitlement to continue receiving that allowance for three years after employment ended. The claimant had received the allowance during employment and one month’s payment in lieu on termination, and the tribunal accepted the respondent’s submission that if the parties had intended the allowance obligation to continue after termination they would have said so. It therefore found no contractual entitlement to further car allowance and no unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment concluded that no monies were due to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal held that, during the probationary period, the claimant’s contractual notice entitlement was one month and that he had been paid for that notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Car allowance claim. The tribunal held that clause 15 entitled the claimant to a car allowance while employed for business purposes, not to continued payments for three years after termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Car allowance claim advanced alternatively as an unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal held there was no continuing contractual entitlement after termination, so no sums were due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- balance of probabilities
- interpretation of the contract of employment
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
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.