Case 1306707/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Harris v Epwin Group plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306707/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 March 2020, the tribunal invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to reply to correspondence and had not actively pursued the claim.
The claim was described as one for unfair dismissal. The tribunal referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and stated that a claimant must have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr Harris had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring these proceedings.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had failed to make written representations, had not made sufficient representations, and had not requested a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out, and the hearing fixed for 8 and 9 June 2020 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim. It noted that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and he had not made sufficient representations after being given the opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.