Case 2302872/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason Bartram v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302872/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jason Bartram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Jason Bartram was employed by Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd as a Senior Build Manager from 11 March 2019 until he was summarily dismissed without notice on 7 February 2020. His contract provided for three months' notice unless he was guilty of gross misconduct. The tribunal heard evidence about the events of 31 January 2020, when Mr Mullholland told the claimant he would be on site until 11am, but later it emerged that he had no intention of attending the site because he was going to a funeral.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to rely on Mr Mullholland's assurance and that there was no error of judgment amounting to misconduct, let alone gross misconduct. It also rejected the employer's submission that the claimant was subject to a strict duty to ensure there was always someone on site. Although the tribunal accepted there had been a breach of the CDM Regulations, it found the claimant was not culpable for that breach and had not conducted himself in a way that caused it. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore succeeded because the respondent was not entitled to dismiss him without the contractual three months' notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Liability only; remedy was to be determined at a future hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.