Case 1305684/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Creez v Proon Enterprises Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305684/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Creez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the complaints of redundancy payment and unfair dismissal were struck out. In the reasons, the judge dealt expressly with the unfair dismissal complaint, noting that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that Mr Creez had been employed by Proon Enterprises Ltd for less than two years. On that basis, he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The judge also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment also states at the outset that the redundancy payment complaint was struck out, but the reasons section does not separately analyse that claim. The tribunal further noted that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment’s opening paragraph states that the complaint of redundancy payment was struck out. The reasons section does not separately analyse this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented the unfair dismissal complaint from proceeding. The claimant 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.
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.