Case 1300655/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Frank Goldie (brother of the claimant) v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300655/2021
- Decision date
- 12 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. Frank Goldie (brother of the claimant)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out. It found that, whether framed as conventional dismissal or constructive dismissal, the complaint was an unfair dismissal complaint for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also noted that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, for why the complaint should not be struck out, and in particular had advanced no reason why he should be entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint despite insufficient service.
The judgment made clear that it did not affect the claimant's disability discrimination claim. It also stated that any other complaint, including a complaint that the dismissal was disability discrimination, was not affected by this judgment. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant gave no acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure
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.