Case 1401549/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D J Parnall v Derek Cuthbert Grange — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401549/2021
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D J Parnall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D J Parnall brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Derek Cuthbert Grange. Employment Judge Smail held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so after a letter from the tribunal, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints, described as unauthorised deductions from earnings and breach of contract, 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 struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant also failed to give an acceptable reason, after being given the opportunity to do so following a letter from the tribunal, 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.