Case 1303069/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ingram v Lowe Rental Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303069/2022
- Decision date
- 2 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ingram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a single complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr M Ingram against Lowe Rental Ltd. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he did not meet the statutory qualifying service requirement to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The reasons also note that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in 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 was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.