Case 2502159/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bradsell v State Oil Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2502159/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bradsell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and breach of contract. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint or the redundancy payment claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service at the effective date of termination.
The breach of contract complaint was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present that claim in time. No remedy was awarded. The hearing was conducted remotely by Cloud Video Platform with the parties' consent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the redundancy payment claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | 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.