Case 1311539/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Thomas v Kee Safety Logistics Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1311539/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Thomas, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Kee Safety Logistics Ltd. The tribunal dealt with the complaint as a preliminary issue and held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that Mr Thomas had been employed for less than two years. It concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and had not given 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.