Case 1302370/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Smallwood v Clements And Church — 2019
- Case reference
- 1302370/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Smallwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a preliminary issue on the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr R Smallwood had been employed by Clements And Church for less than two years, and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal claim. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 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.