Case 1304311/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K McIntosh v Wet Holdings Global Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1304311/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K McIntosh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr McIntosh had been employed by Wet Holdings Global Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment ends by stating that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in relation to the struck-out claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.