Case 3201993/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Barham v Gamma Systems Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201993/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Barham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Barham, brought claims against Gamma Systems Ltd for unfair dismissal and breach of contract in respect of bonus. The hearing was held on 27 March 2024 before Employment Judge Street at East London Hearing Centre by CVP. No lay members are listed in the judgment.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that Mr Barham had not been employed by the respondent for a continuous period of two years at the date his employment terminated, so he did not meet the qualifying period required for an unfair dismissal claim.
The breach of contract claim concerning bonus was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the claim was outside its jurisdiction because the bonus claim did not arise or was not outstanding on termination. The judgment also records that, although it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim before 23 August 2023, it was not brought within a reasonable period thereafter. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had not been employed by the respondent for a continuous period of two years at the date of termination of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in relation to the bonus claim because it did not arise or was not outstanding on termination. The tribunal also recorded that, although it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim before 23 August 2023, it was not brought within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- continuous period of two years
- not reasonably practicable / reasonable period thereafter
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.