Case 3314185/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Jonathan Abrahams For the v Joshua Hitchens — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314185/2021
- Decision date
- 20 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cotton Appearances
- Venue
- by telephone
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jonathan Abrahams For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a case management hearing on 30 August 2022, Employment Judge Cotton recorded that two complaints in the claimant's ET1 of 8 August 2021 were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The first was a complaint framed as a breach of duty of care. The tribunal stated that, to the extent this was put forward as a distinct cause of action, it was not a claim the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider.
The second was a complaint that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, insofar as it required at least two years' continuous service under section 108(1) of that Act. The judgment records that the claimant accepted he did not have that length of service at the effective date of termination of his contract.
No substantive merits findings or remedy were recorded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim that the respondent acted in breach of a duty of care was dismissed on withdrawal at the case management hearing; the tribunal noted that breach of duty of care was not a claim it had jurisdiction to consider. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint under section 94 ERA 1996, insofar as it depended on at least two years' continuous service under section 108(1), was dismissed on withdrawal. The claimant accepted he did not have the necessary length of service at the effective date of termination. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108(1) ERA 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.