Case 1305434/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Buck v Famous Websites t/a oktogon bar — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305434/2018
- Decision date
- 7 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Buck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered Mr Buck's complaint of unfair dismissal and applied the statutory two-year qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that he had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that Mr Buck was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. He 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- 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.
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.