Case 8002296/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002296/2025 Held in Glasgow on April 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Mr Nick Moore v Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002296/2025
- Decision date
- 8 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002296/2025 Held in Glasgow on April 2026 Employment Judge M A Macleod Mr Nick Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNick Moore’s wrongful dismissal claim against Peninsula Business Services Limited succeeded. His separate breach of contract claim was dismissed. He had withdrawn his sex and sexual orientation discrimination claims. The tribunal expressly distinguished wrongful dismissal from unfair dismissal, which was not pursued: the question was whether Moore had committed conduct sufficiently serious to entitle the respondent to terminate his contract without notice, rather than whether its decision was reasonable.
Moore was summarily dismissed on 5 August 2025 following allegations that he had assaulted his direct report, James Girdwood, in Spain and had breached trust and confidence through their alleged personal relationship and trip together. The respondent failed to prove either ground of gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities. Girdwood did not give evidence, while Moore gave direct evidence denying the assault and relationship. The tribunal found the police and medical material unsatisfactory and unreliable because it had not been fully translated, and the partial translation was not authoritative. A photograph had no evidential value because Moore could not be identified and no witness could establish its circumstances. The tribunal accepted Moore’s evidence about the alleged relationship, which was consistent with his immediate denial when challenged.
The separate contractual complaints failed. Although the position concerning probation was unclear, there was no evidence that Moore had received the written confirmation required to pass it. The tribunal therefore concluded that he remained on probation, during which the contract allowed the respondent not to apply its full capability and disciplinary procedures. Communicating a probation decision when the period should have ended would have been good practice, but the failure to do so was not a contractual breach. Requiring Moore to attend management meetings five minutes before his normal start time three mornings each week was permitted by the additional-hours clause. The contract contained no provision for extra payment for that time.
Moore was entitled to four weeks’ notice pay. On an annual gross salary of £36,000 and weekly pay of £692.31, the tribunal awarded £2,769.24, subject to tax and national insurance deductions. No other award was made. The claimed bonus loss lacked supporting evidence and did not arise from the wrongful dismissal claim. No expenses application had been made, and no evidence established grounds for an expenses award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Four weeks’ gross notice pay, subject to deduction of tax and national insurance. No unfair dismissal claim was advanced. | Upheld | — | £2,769 |
| Breach of contract | Covered disciplinary procedures, communication about probation and additional working time. Paragraph 66 describes the probationary period as four weeks, whereas the contractual provision quoted earlier specifies six months. The tribunal nevertheless expressly found that probation remained ongoing and that four weeks’ notice applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Withdrawn before the hearing; no determination on the merits. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Withdrawn before the hearing; no determination on the merits. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,769
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Enable Care & Home Support Ltd v Pearson UKEAT/0366/09/SM: conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach permitting summary termination
- Proof of gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities
- Section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- 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.