Case 3331920/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B. James v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331920/2018
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B. James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim. It recorded that no damages were payable because the claimant had already received his notice payment.
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for detriment under s45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claim for automatically unfair dismissal under s101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was upheld, but the judgment states that no damages are payable because the claimant had already received his notice payment. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Working time regulations | The judgment describes this as a claim for detriment under s45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for automatically unfair dismissal under s101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s45A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s101A 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.