Case 1300281/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Bayley v Brushstrokes Roadsweepers Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300281/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Bayley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr W Bayley, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Brushstrokes Roadsweepers Limited. Employment Judge Bansal recorded that the complaint was struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The judgment says the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and ordered that it be struck out. The judgment also states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.