Case 3200419/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Bradley Bulgen v Net-Com — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200419/2025
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Bradley Bulgen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 28 October 2025 at East London Hearing Centre, held by video, the claimant Mr Bradley Bulgen appeared with Mrs Bulgen and the respondent, Net-Com (92) Limited, appeared through Mr N Henry, Consultant. The judgment records claims for breach of contract in respect of notice and other payments, arrears of holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages, and a further claim concerning failure to provide terms and conditions of employment under s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal dismissed the claims for breach of contract, arrears of holiday pay and unlawful deductions from wages. It also recorded that the claim about failure to provide terms and conditions of employment was dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of notice and other payments was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for arrears of holiday pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide terms and conditions of employment, subject to s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996, was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.