Case 1301269/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Browning v A E Oscroft and Sons Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1301269/2019
- Decision date
- 6 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Browning
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Browning brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract against A E Oscroft and Sons Ltd. The case was heard at Birmingham on 24 July 2019 before Employment Judge Miller, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant did not meet the qualifying period of employment required by s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that this was the reason the unfair dismissal complaint could not succeed.
The breach of contract claim for failure to pay notice pay was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not meet the qualifying period of employment under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for failure to pay notice pay was dismissed as having no reasonable prospects of success because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.