Case 2201755/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs M Badesha, HR Accountant — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201755/2019
- Decision date
- 3 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the correct respondent was Box to Box Films Ltd. It accepted that the claimant may have been the preferred candidate for the Production Accountant role, but held that he was not actually offered the job by the respondent or by the recruitment agency, Platinum Resources Ltd, whether in writing or verbally.
Although the claimant may have believed he had been offered the job, the tribunal found there had been no offer and acceptance leading to a binding contract. It noted that the interview process, the recruitment agency's encouragement, and the taking up of favourable references did not change that conclusion. The tribunal found the respondent was still completing its internal processes and that the job was later offered to a preferred candidate.
On that basis, the tribunal held there was no formal offer for the respondent to withdraw and therefore no notice of termination to be given. The claim for breach of contract was dismissed. The tribunal distinguished McCann v Snozone on the facts, because in that case there had been a verbal offer and acceptance, whereas here there was no written or verbal offer subject to references or otherwise.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was not actually offered the job, either in writing or verbally, so there was no offer and acceptance creating a binding contract. As there was no formal offer to withdraw, the breach of contract claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.