Case 1402669/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Faraday v Vivid Housing Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402669/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Faraday
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr J Faraday against Vivid Housing Limited. It found that Mr Faraday had been employed for less than two years, so he did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement for an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal noted that Mr Faraday was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment stated that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and so was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.