Case 1305633/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Calder v Rola Property Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305633/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Calder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Calder, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment against Rola Property Ltd. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the same Act requires two years' service for redundancy pay eligibility.
The tribunal found that Mr Calder had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring either the unfair dismissal complaint or the redundancy payment claim. It also found that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
Accordingly, both complaints were struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996; the claimant also failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996; the claimant also failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 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.