Case 1400670/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Bolitho v Bristol And Somerset Fit Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 1400670/2020
Decision date: 19 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Roper Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Bolitho

Respondent

Bristol And Somerset Fit Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr A Bolitho, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Bristol And Somerset Fit Ltd. The tribunal dealt with the matter as a strike out judgment on the basis of length of service. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason.

Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal was 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
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. 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

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.