Case 1302071/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Newbold v Get Switched Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302071/2023
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Newbold
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' employment for a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that Mr C Newbold had been employed by Get Switched Limited for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring either complaint.
It also noted that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 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.