Case 1402911/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr O Jones v Hydrosphere UK Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 1402911/2022
Decision date: 29 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Livesey Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr O Jones

Respondent

Hydrosphere UK Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr O Jones, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Hydrosphere UK Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Jones had been employed for less than two years.

Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed. It also noted that the claimant's response to the strike out warning did not give any reason why the claim should continue despite the lack of two years' service.

The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, but it did not determine those complaints in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented the unfair dismissal complaint from proceeding. The claimant's response to the strike out warning did not provide a reason to allow the claim to continue.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.