Case 2402388/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Brown v British Telecommunications plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402388/2024
- Decision date
- 20 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Liverpool video hearing on 3 February 2025, before Employment Judge Aspinall, the tribunal recorded that Mr N Brown's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. The written judgment is a short record of the oral decision and does not set out fuller written reasons beyond the outcome.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract / wrongful dismissal complaint. It found that the respondent shortened the claimant's notice period and paid him in lieu of notice without a pay in lieu of notice clause, while also recording that the claimant was paid the three months' notice pay to which he was entitled. A separate complaint that the respondent had not provided an up to date written statement of particulars when the claim started also succeeded. No monetary award is set out in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the respondent shortened the claimant's notice period and paid him in lieu of notice without a pay in lieu of notice clause, but also records that he was paid the three months' notice pay to which he was entitled. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the respondent failed to provide an up to date written statement of particulars when the claim started. | 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.