Hughes' employment commenced on 1 June 2011. On 6 September he was told that he had failed his probationary period and he was given 1 month's notice, which expired on 5 October. Hughes lodged an unfair dismissal complaint in the Tribunal. He also claimed wrongful dismissal, on the basis that he should have been given three months' notice rather than one month. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out by the Tribunal on the basis that he had not completed 26 weeks' continuous employment and therefore had no protection from unfair dismissal.

Hughes appealed to the Royal Court saying that contractually he was entitled to three months' notice. Given Article 63(2), he argued that he was entitled to claim unfair dismissal as had he received the notice to which he said he was contractually entitled he would have had the requisite period of continuous employment to bring such a claim.

Article 63(2) states:

"Where –

(a) the contract of employment is terminated by the employer; and

(b) the notice required by Article 56 to be given by an employer would, if duly given on the material date, expire on a date later than the effective date of termination, for the purposes of Article 73 the later date shall be the effective date of termination."

The Royal Court dismissed the appeal. It was clear that the employee had received more than the statutory minimum notice entitlement required by Article 56 and therefore Article 63(2) did not come into play.

The employment had come to an end on 5 October, which was the effective date of termination for the purposes of Article 73. He had therefore not been continuously employed for at least 26 weeks and the Tribunal had correctly struck out the unfair dismissal claim.