Case 1401239/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Loader v 1.Saltern's Academy Trust 2.Hampshire County Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401239/2022
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Loader
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with a single unfair dismissal complaint brought by Mr O Loader against Saltern's Academy Trust and Hampshire County Council. By email dated 8 April 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason given was that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unfair dismissal claims cannot be brought unless the claimant has two years' employment or falls within a specific exception, and the claim form appeared to show less than two years' service.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded and no substantive determination of the merits of the dismissal was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal considered that the claimant appeared to have been employed for less than two years and therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, subject to any exception that did not appear to apply. The claimant did not make written representations, make sufficient representations, or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning. | 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.