Case 1304554/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Aidan Bradbury v Eurorad Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304554/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Aidan Bradbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Aidan Bradbury had the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal recorded that he started work with Tile Mountain Limited on 28 May 2019, his employment with that company ended by mutual agreement on 31 October 2021, and he was employed by Eurorad Limited from 1 November 2021.
Employment Judge Britton found that Eurorad Limited and Tile Mountain Limited were associated employers within section 231 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As a result, section 218(6) preserved Mr Bradbury’s continuity of employment when he moved between the associated employers.
On that basis, the tribunal held that Mr Bradbury had two years’ continuous employment at the date the claim was presented, and the complaint of unfair dismissal would proceed. The judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal would proceed because the claimant had two years' continuous employment at the date the claim was presented. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.231 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.218(6) 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.