[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-280542-105":53,"doc-detail-280542-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","mr-james-bice-v-bgl-group-limited-employment-tribunal-judgment-33288392017","Mr James Bice v BGL Group Limited - Employment Tribunal Judgment - 3328839/2017","","Employment Tribunal judgment in case 3328839/2017 concerning Mr James Bice’s claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal heard the matter at Cambridge on 17 October 2018 before Employment Judge Foxwell, following early conciliation and a notice dismissal. The claimant’s employment history and role within the respondent’s IDO division are set out, alongside witness evidence and agreed bundle references. The tribunal addresses the legal tests for unfair dismissal and breach of contract, then makes findings of fact on notice periods under promotion contracts.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/mr-james-bice-v-bgl-group-limited-employment-tribunal-judgment-33288392017/280542/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/mr-james-bice-v-bgl-group-limited-employment-tribunal-judgment-33288392017/280542.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Aurora","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-22","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":73},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What claims were brought in case 3328839/2017?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"Mr James Bice brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) after his dismissal from BGL Group Limited.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"When and where was the hearing held, and who presided?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The case was heard at Cambridge on 17 October 2018 before Employment Judge Foxwell.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What was the key dispute about breach of contract?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The tribunal considered whether the claimant’s contract provided three months’ notice (paid on dismissal) or six months’ notice.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},280542,1790092646,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":73,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":47},4810365810221,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Case Number: 3328839/2017  \nEMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS  \nClaimant Respondent  \nMr James Bice v BGL Group Limited  \nHeard at: Cambridge On: 17 October 2018  \nBefore: Employment Judge Foxwell  \nAppearances  \nFor the Claimant: Mr M Anastasiades, Solicitor  \nFor the Respondent: Ms C Merrington, Senior Legal Counsel  \nJUDGMENT  \nThe Claimant’s claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal are not wellfounded and are dismissed.  \nREASONS  \n1. The claimant, Mr James Bice was employed by the respondent BGL Group Ltd. , between 1 September 2006 and 13 June 2017, when he was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice.  \n2. Having gone through early conciliation between 9 September 2017 and  \n9 October 2017, he presented complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract to the tribunal and those are the matters that have come before me for hearing.  \n3. At the date of his dismissal the claimant was employed as an Associate Director for Trading and Performance in the respondent’s Insurance Distribution and Outsourcing division, (or IDO division), more specifically he worked in a business known as Front Line, which was part of IDO. In his capacity as an Associate Director, he reported to the Managing Director of Front Line, Mark Townsend, who in turn reported to Peter Thompson who was the Managing Director of the IDO division. The  \nCase Number: 3328839/2017  \nrespondent is a large organisation, with some 2569 employees, but, as I have just described is broken up into smaller divisions.  \n4. In deciding the claimant’s claims, I heard evidence from four witnesses on behalf of the respondents. Firstly, from Mrs Kate Mark, who is an Employee Relations Manager and who has had many years’ experience in HR; from Mr Mark Guttridge who was employed as a Finance Director within the respondent between 2009 and April 2018, and was Finance Director for the last two years of that period, he has now moved on from the respondent; Ursula Gibbs who works at Associate Director level within the respondent, that is the same level as the claimant enjoyed; and Sean Melia who was a Director of Business Services, a different division within the respondent and he dealt with a disciplinary appeal.  \n5. The claimant gave evidence in support of his claim and called no other witnesses. That is quite normal in the employment tribunal and I certainly do not draw any inference from the number of witnesses a party calls.  \n6. In addition to the evidence of those witnesses, I consider the documents to which I was taken in an agreed bundle, and references to page numbers in these reasons relate to that bundle.  \n7. Finally, I heard closing submissions from the parties’ representatives. I had set a timetable at the start of the hearing to ensure that we were able, at the very least, to get to this stage within the ambit of the one day listing and I am grateful to both representatives for sticking to that timetable so that objective could be met.  \n8. I deal briefly with the legal principles that I must apply.  \n9. In a claim of unfair dismissal, where the dismissal is admitted, as it is in this case, it is for an employer to establish the reason for dismissal and that it is one of the potentially fair reasons set out in s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If the employer does that, then it is for the tribunal to decide whether it was in fact fair to dismiss for that reason by applying the test of fairness contained in s.98(4) of the Act. The test of fairness does not permit the tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the employer, rather, the tribunal is required to assess the reasonableness of the employer’s decision and decision making process when judged against the band of reasonable responses of an employer and having regard to the size and administrative resources available to the respondent. The tribunal is assessing the reasonableness of the decision, not the truth of the underlying allegations.  \n10. Turning to the claim of breach of contract, this is not a case of su","cbCaigLbNa15iR3M","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigLbNa15iR3M","pdf",742193,13,"English","# Reasons\n## Findings of Fact","[{\"question\":\"What claims were brought in case 3328839/2017?\",\"answer\":\"Mr James Bice brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) after his dismissal from BGL Group Limited.\"},{\"question\":\"When and where was the hearing held, and who presided?\",\"answer\":\"The case was heard at Cambridge on 17 October 2018 before Employment Judge Foxwell.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the key dispute about breach of contract?\",\"answer\":\"The tribunal considered whether the claimant’s contract provided three months’ notice (paid on dismissal) or six months’ notice.\"}]","Mr James Bice v BGL Group Limited - Employment Tribunal Judgment - 3328839/2017 | PDF",1789550470]