Case 1305637/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bate v Blue Claret Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305637/2023
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bate
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant’s complaint that he was entitled to a redundancy payment. It found that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years’ employment for eligibility, and that Mr Bate had been employed by Blue Claret Ltd for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring a redundancy payment complaint. It also recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The complaint for a redundancy payment 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The complaint was struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not eligible to bring a redundancy payment complaint under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal noted that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.