Case 8002200/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002200/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on April 2026, with Deliberation on the th April and May 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr G Holmes v TSB Bank plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002200/2025
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002200/2025 Heard at Edinburgh on April 2026, with Deliberation on the th April and May 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr G Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Gavin Holmes sought a declaration that no contractually valid company-car termination charge had been created and that he was not liable for the £7,442.16 demanded by TSB Bank PLC. Although his original proceedings also alleged an unauthorised deduction from wages, he subsequently accepted that TSB had made no such deduction and stood upon his contractual claim. The Tribunal dismissed that claim for want of jurisdiction because Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 applies to an employee's claim for recovery of damages or another sum and did not empower it to grant the declaratory remedy sought.
The Tribunal held that TSB's contractual counterclaim remained within its jurisdiction under Article 4 notwithstanding the dismissal of Mr Holmes's claim. It found that Mr Holmes accepted the company-car scheme in August 2022, signed a driver declaration in October 2022 and agreed to be bound by the scheme rules as amended from time to time, including liability for an early termination fee if he left TSB's employment before the end of the lease for a reason other than redundancy. After receiving TSB's message of 25 November 2024 warning that termination fees had increased substantially and explaining how to obtain a current quotation, he continued using the car and did not request a quotation until after deciding to leave.
The Tribunal rejected Mr Holmes's defence that his understanding of the potential amount amounted to essential error preventing a contract from being formed. It found that any error was unilateral and concerned an expectation about the future amount of a variable fee, rather than the nature or legal effect of the obligation, and was not sufficiently material to preclude agreement. TSB's counterclaim therefore succeeded, and the Tribunal ordered Mr Holmes to pay TSB £7,442.16. No interest or separate remedy components were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant's claim for a declaration that the early termination charge was unenforceable was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it did not seek recovery of damages or another sum within Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contractual counterclaim succeeded. The award is payable by the claimant to the respondent in implement of the claimant's liability for the company-car early termination fee. | Upheld | — | £7,442 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,442
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- expressio unius est exclusio alterius
- Patel v RCMS Ltd [1999] IRLR 161
- M Fearon Vaughan Simpson v WM A Merrick UKEAT/0490/09/DA
- essential error under Scots law
- Stuart v Kennedy 1889 16 R 857
- Dormer v Allan and Son 1900 3 F 112
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.