Case 1402281/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hollis v Serc Leisure Operating Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1402281/2025
- Decision date
- 9 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hollis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out, and accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring that complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.