Case 2410294/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Brangman v NCO Europe Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410294/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Brangman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 18 October 2019, the Tribunal considered whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims should be struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It recorded that the claimant lacked the qualifying service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
On the breach of contract claim, the Tribunal said the claimant had been paid notice pay, which was the only type of contractual claim she could present on the facts before it. It therefore concluded that the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant was given an opportunity to make representations against strike out but did not make any, or any sufficient, representations. Those claims were therefore struck out. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant's remaining claims were unaffected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the Tribunal found the claimant lacked qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and had not made sufficient representations against strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the Tribunal found the claimant had been paid notice pay, which was the only contractual claim available on the facts, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
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.