Case 1400962/2022 · Employment Tribunal
M Huggett v Kim Sanders — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400962/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Huggett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Kim Sanders. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity, by letter dated 22 April 2022, to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. It further stated that the claimant made no other claims. The claim was accordingly struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service, found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and struck out the claim after he gave no acceptable reason why it should not be struck out following the Tribunal's letter dated 22 April 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.