Case 4106721/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Craig Jowett v , Solicitor Javelin Saw Doctor Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106721/2020
- Decision date
- 23 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Craig Jowett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in which the tribunal considered whether Mr Craig Jowett had the two years' continuous service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Jowett and Mrs Shirley Jowett, and the key dispute was whether there had been a break in employment between 1 July 2019 and 17 November 2019 after a P45 had been issued.
The tribunal found Mr Jowett to be a credible and reliable witness and found Mrs Jowett's evidence less satisfactory. It accepted that Mr Jowett continued to carry out work for the respondent from July 2019 onwards, that text messages showed ongoing work arrangements, and that wages continued to be paid into his bank account. On that basis, the tribunal held that there was sufficient mutuality of obligation and an implied contract of employment throughout the disputed period, so there was no break in continuity of employment.
Applying ss.108(1), 210 and 212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that Mr Jowett had continuous employment from 1 June 2005 to 24 June 2020 for the purposes of unfair dismissal jurisdiction. It therefore held that the unfair dismissal claim could proceed to a final hearing, together with the claims for wrongful dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and other payments. No liability decision or monetary award was made at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal found that the claimant had sufficient continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim under s.108(1) ERA 1996, and that the claim should proceed to a final hearing. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- ss.210-212 ERA 1996
- s.212(3)(c) 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.