Case 1306367/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gough v Sps Technology Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306367/2020
- Decision date
- 15 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Gough brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Sps Technology Services Limited. Employment Judge Butler held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out on 15 June 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found the claimant had less than two years' service. It also recorded that he did not give an acceptable reason 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.