A FORMER shoot manager who claimed he was the "minder" of a late Earl has lost a case for unfair dismissal after a judge ruled he was not promised a "job for life".

An employment tribunal, the details of which were published this week, heard that the man worked for the late Earl of Strathmore for 13 years on what he claims was a verbal contract.

He was assigned the role at the Holwick Estate, in Middleton-in-Teesdale, and told the tribunal the position included helping the Earl when he was drunk and assisting him with family matters – including his two divorces.

His said his role also included maintenance of the building estate, which was administered by a third party based in Barnard Castle.

The manager was paid £1,000 a month and had use of a Land Rover Discovery as his company car.

The claimant told the tribunal he was happy to look after the Earl who he believed had a dependency for alcohol, despite the verbal and physical abuse he said he endured.

The Earl died in early 2016 and the trustees of the Earl’s will took over as the claimant’s employer.

The claimant told the trustees about his agreement with the late Earl and said it meant he could stay in his job for as long as he liked.

He referred to a letter sent by the Earl, which assured him that the job of shoot manager was his until he retired.

He was asked to sign a new contract of employment following the Earl’s death but handed it back unsigned as he felt it did not reflect his previous agreement.

The claimant wrote to the chairman of the trustees, saying his job was not only to run the moor, but look after the Earl through “thick and thin”.

The chairman arranged to meet the shoot manager after accounts showed there was a fall in income from the season in 2015. Figures also showed was no income from the 2016 season.

He told the man that because of financial difficulties the position of shoot manger was up for redundancy and discussed the possibility he could retire at the end of the season, on February 1, 2018.

A letter to the claimant in 2017 dismissed him for reasons of redundancy, with 12 weeks notice pay and a redundancy payment.

But the claimant said it amounted unfair dismissal because he had been given a “job for life”. But judge Pamela Arullendran concluded at the tribunal, which took place in North Shields, that the Earl had not given him a "job for life" and said the claimant had failed to prove he was employed on a fixed-term contract, which was only to be terminated by the claimant.

The judge dismissed the claim, but did find it true that the claimant looked after the Earl out of friendship and supported the worker’s claim that he carried out minding duties for the Earl.