Case 1402366/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Williams v Defence Equipment And Support — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402366/2019
- Decision date
- 7 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Williams, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Defence Equipment And Support. Regional Employment Judge Pirani held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Williams had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that he was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also noted that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore 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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found the claimant had less than two years' service. It also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, 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.