Case 1302297/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lowden (in person) For the v Mr J Cummany (managing director) Mr S Lavin (director) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302297/2020
- Decision date
- 5 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lowden (in person) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Birmingham hearing on 5 June 2020 before Employment Judge Johnson, Mr S Lowden’s unfair dismissal claim against Artel Rubber Holdings Limited was the only claim determined. The Tribunal dismissed that claim because it had no jurisdiction to accept it.
The reason given was that, at the time of dismissal, the claimant had not been continuously employed for at least two years, as required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the claimant’s breach of contract and unpaid wages claims were not decided at this hearing and remained in issue for the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to accept the claim; at the time of dismissal the claimant had not been continuously employed for not less than two years, within section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108(1) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.