Case 1304229/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Pilarski v Alpine4care Services — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304229/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Pilarski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal identified the claimant's only discernible complaint as an unfair dismissal claim. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for such a claim unless a special type of unfair dismissal applied, and that Mr Pilarski did not appear to fall within any special category.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring the claim. It also recorded that, after a letter dated 17 April 2024 warning that the claim was liable to be struck out, the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, or any reason, why it should proceed. The claim was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and because it would not be in the interests of justice for the tribunal to deal with a claim that was bound to fail.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claimant's only discernible complaint was unfair dismissal and that he was employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospects of success
- interests of justice
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.